05 Mar Kahanism & Democracy (Part 1)
A number of years ago, a follower of Rav Meir Kahane HY”D sent me the rabbi’s posthumously published magnum opus, Or Ha-Ra’ayon, with a request that I review it publicly in the hope that I and others would become advocates of ideology. Over the next few weeks, I will publish my reviews from that time and add at least one more. Or Ha-Ra’ayon is laced with harsh rhetoric. R. Kahane tolerated no dissent and viciously attacked opposing views, even when held by great Torah scholars. I find that offensive but hope to set it aside and discuss the merit of his ideas, with one exception as we will see below.
The first topic is Democracy, and I will compare R. Kahane’s analysis with those of R. Eliezer Yehudah Waldenburg (in his Responsa Tzitz Eliezer and Hilchos Medinah), R. Shaul Yisraeli (in his Amud Ha-Yemini) and R. Shlomo Goren (in his Toras Ha-Medinah).
I. DEMOCRACY ISN’T KOSHER
R. Kahane strongly opposed democracy as contrary to the Torah. If the public determines the law, it can easily establish rules that deviate from the Torah (Or Ha-Ra’ayon, p. 291). While this may please the public, it does not fit God’s plan for the Jewish nation. Rather, democracy is a foreign import, a gentile concept improperly grafted onto Judaism.
R. Kahane argued (p. 288) that the idea that people give the government the right to rule in their name leads to the concept that people may not reject a government decision. In this secular-national concept of a government, the people are supreme. However, the Jewish nation is governed by the Torah, not themselves.
Additionally, the Israeli government currently consists largely of non-religious Jews. However, R. Kahane notes (p. 294), the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Melachim 1:7) rules that only someone who fears God may be appointed to a public position. Additionally, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 26a) rejects decisions made together with wicked people as the product of a “kesher resha’aim,” a wicked union (pp. 57, 291-292). Therefore, a democratically elected non-religious government is inherently invalid and its decisions against the Torah are null and void.
Rather, R. Kahane insisted, the proper Jewish government is as the Torah commands, a monarchy: “You shall surely appoint a king on you” (Deut. 17:15). Described throughout the Bible and codified as law by Rambam, this divinely ordained form of government is the only proper way to govern a Jewish country. Since we currently lack a prophet to appoint a king, R. Kahane suggests we instead appoint a nasi (regent) to rule like a king.
II. THEORETICAL CHALLENGES
R. Kahane’s view and presentation runs into problems on the theoretical, biblical, commentarial, talmudic and historical planes.
Let’s take them one at a time. R. Kahane rejects democracy because it allows the government to pass laws contrary to the Torah. However, this objection is insufficient to reject democracy entirely because there is a democratic alternative which resolves this problem: a constitutional democracy in which the democratically elected government is unable to pass laws contrary to its Torah-based constitution. Indeed, the Torah scholars who support a democracy generally do not support the laws passed contrary to the Torah. You can support democracy and still object to those laws.
Additionally, this same objection can be raised equally against the institution of monarchy. As we see from the times of the Bible and the Second Commonwealth, Jewish kings often established rules contrary to the Torah. Monarchy is certainly no safeguard against government misconduct.
III. BIBLICAL TROUBLE
One of R. Kahane’s frequent rhetorical devices is to label views with which he disagrees as gentile attitudes. Because of his rhetorical style, I would not point it out in our context if not for the irony.
The only government system that the Bible explicitly calls gentile is monarchy: “And you will say, I will appoint on me a king like all the nations around me” (Deut. 17:14). Calling democracy a gentile form of government when the Torah applies that label to monarchy, and failing to address that issue, is in my opinion a serious omission.
However, even more significant is the failure to address the prophet Shmuel’s criticism of the Jews when they asked for a king (1 Sam. 8).
If monarchy is the ideal form of government and divinely mandated, why did the prophet object when the people wished to appoint a king? This is not an obscure question. The literature surrounding it runs deep in our commentarial tradition. Yet R. Kahane fails to address it. This is particularly grave because R. Kahane leans toward citation of primary texts — Bible and Talmud — and quotes commentaries and codes sparingly. This magnifies the absence of this key biblical passage on monarchy. As we will see, those who disagree with R. Kahane follow in the footsteps of the Rishonim who engage with these issues.
(to be continued)