Chareidim In a Democracy

Another guest post from Jerry Steinfeld

In my previous post, we spoke about the isolationist attitude of Chareidi culture. Although we weren't discussing Israeli politics openly, we did hint at the discussions surrounding our community in the larger Israeli society, highlighting a glaring omission in the conversation: the failure to consider our perspective. They don’t understand our values, particularly the significance of a genuine Yeshiva education which instills our many principles and ideals. Truth be told, within that context they are correct. If a Yeshiva holds little or no value, then our exemption from military service is selfish and nonsensical. But, as we discussed, engaging in dialogue with them regarding the issues they raise (army, work etc.) is fruitless because their premise is flawed; they don’t get it. Their failure to comprehend our concerns, which they dismiss as absurd from the start, makes any conversation impossible. Thus, even if their arguments do contain valid points, the conversation is inherently pointless due to their refusal to acknowledge our perspective as legitimate.

That being said, there are two remaining points to discuss: 1. How does this dynamic play out in a democracy? (This is mainly to explain why we seemingly go against our nature and get involved when it comes to politics.) 2. What about the issues they raise? If their complaints are valid, but discussion with them is futile, how do we deal with the concerns? Let's address these points one by one.

1. How does this attitude play out in a democracy?

I believe we should start by clarifying the purpose of a democracy in our society before continuing further.

The key difference between a monarchy and a democracy is who makes the decisions. In a monarchy, the king holds the decision-making power, ideally acting solely in the best interests of his people, doing nothing selfishly. In a democracy, on the other hand, the people have a greater role in decision-making, electing representatives to act on their behalf. An obvious and well-known drawback of a monarchy is that power can corrupt the mind of its beholder, as we have seen too many times in history, and a democracy addresses this through systems of checks and balances at all levels of governance.

But a slightly less discussed downside of  a monarchy, particularly relevant to our 2024 globalized society, is how it deals with a diverse population, where people hold different interests and agendas. A monarchy works well when its subjects share the same core values; the king can then represent these shared principles, while simply keeping these principles in check. For example, if we all agree that stealing is bad, the king will represent that will and turn it into a law, and when someone's yetzer hara gets the better of them and they want to steal, they'll be prosecuted by the law and systems put in place. But what about when there are entirely different epistemic wills in the country? This plays out strongest when half the country is atheistic and half believes in God. The value systems will easily be very different given these underlying presumptions. A king, who is representing all of his subjects, will find himself with a gaping problem. Whichever side he is aligned with can lead to obvious significant issues. If he were more left leaning, say, an atheist, that would affect a whole number of issues that stem from the western moral code of valuing personal freedom over anything else. Abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, and so on, would fall right under his preexisting worldview. However, if he were religious, and the nuclear family is a huge factor of growth and happiness in life, not personal freedom, he would have an entirely different outlook on these many issues. In such a situation, if enough people held any certain way in opposition to the king, the monarchy could fall apart unless it turned into a sort of dictatorship.

Democracy addresses this by providing fair representation to each side, allowing them to advocate for their beliefs. But we must be clear: representation is the extent of their influence. While they can each champion their cause, decisions ultimately hinge on the majority vote, and "may the best man win." This dynamic can lead to significant division within a country and, in extreme cases, even civil war, as we've seen in the USA in the 1860s. Preventing such conflicts requires individuals caring enough to voice and even fight for their opinions, while simultaneously acknowledging that the majority view prevails, regardless of personal preferences.

So while democracy helps a diverse country run by allowing a range of opinions, this can also be its very downfall, potentially eroding any semblance of unity between the two sides. If the two sides can’t accept the fact that another group thinks completely differently, they will just fight and hate each other. This plays out most clearly in regards to theism vs. atheism, and all the dividing issues that follow.

Back to the Chareidi cause, Israel operates as a democracy. That means that each party can try its best to effect change, and perhaps politically they should try all tactics possible to get their side's message across. This is what our opponents do. They have slogans and narratives to sway public opinion to buy into their cause. But given this dynamic, we who have our own set of beliefs, have every right to do the same. We don't need to let others, who don't understand us, destroy our mission. Thus, we will continue to vote - and we will continue to grow in numbers, and we will try to elect the people that represent us until we get our way.

Is playing the political game in line with the Torah? Absolutely! We will use the tactics provided for us as a right of democracy, simply to allow the Torah community to thrive. Anyone willing to engage with us and convince us that our moral system is wrong, good luck! If the argument is to dismiss the importance of Yeshivos and continue labeling our efforts as selfish, we will stand firm and double down on our cause. Contrary to what the opposition may claim, there is nothing unethical, misguided or "dirty" about our stance. This is merely democracy in action.

In all honesty, we'd rather be left alone and stay out of things. But we can't. Because our opponents won't leave us alone. They call to shut down our most sublime institutions; they want us to be integrated into their culture. Well then, we have to use our political tactics and numbers to fight for the rights we have as a freedom of belief to fend for ourselves and get our (God's) way. And truthfully, towards anything that works to the cause of our mission, we are supposed to get involved. We eat and sleep so we can continue learning, and when done right, it's a mitzvah to eat, like bringing a korban. Same with voting. Hishtadlus, when used to maximize our mission, is actually something we do with zerizus.

Where the song changes keys is when dealing with individuals who claim to be religious Jews. Such folks aren’t ostensibly fighting a political war. They are “officially” on the same page as us that God’s will is what is important and we are here to do His biddings. But in this, they are completely inconsistent. Because if one claims to be a religious, Orthodox Jew, and he is fighting with the other orthodox Jews who are clearly represent the Torah from myriads of sources, what service is it to God that they fight with us? What will they answer after 120? Do they think they are doing God’s work by constantly yelling at and about those who follow the Vilna Gaon? Who follow the Maharshal? Who follow the Bach? The Maharal? The Magen Avraham, the Mishna Berura? All these people adopt the “mystical” worldview where there is a behind-the-scenes at play. Even if there is another approach (but there isn't), our way is more than valid according to thousands of sources in the Mesorah. So what and who are they fighting for? Why the obsession with us? Unless….unless… they are truly nothing more than political pundits who are voices for the Chilonim. I'd love it if they would clarify this point. But until then, our approach to them, while we have fun pointing out their stunning inconsistencies, is to ignore them like we would any rabid enemy, because it's a democracy and we don't need to defend ourselves to those who are too thick to listen to us.

2. What do we do about the issues they raise?

That all said, there are issues that are raised that are concerning. What do we, amongst ourselves, do about these issues? As is often pointed out, with the Chareidi attitude that Hashem runs the world and we do His will while He takes care, where would change come from?

One point to consider is that since there is an opposing side, we cannot easily compromise because if we give them a finger, they take a hand. Any concessions will lead to further demands. Our only choice seems to be to double down and stand firm. I've expressed this already numerous times in different comments in context of the gemara in Sanhedrin 7a, אמר רב הונא האי תיגרא דמיא לצינורא דבידקא דמיא כיון דרווח רווח אביי קשישא אמר דמי לגודא דגמלא כיון דקם קם, a fight is like a stream of water that once it splits into two and diverges, it never comes back together. This is how politics work in general and why democracies tend to divide, and here is no different.

But as far as change goes, I contend that we do not need to worry excessively - things truly are in Hashem's hands! It's entirely possible that Hashem's mediums are the anti-Chareidi voices and politicians who will make some change with their political tactics, though regrettably, like the Yevanim, their actions to undermine Torah will not go unpunished. That may be the way to pressure the Charedim into a compromise that preserves their standards. It is not far-fetched to imagine that such a compromise might involve increased testing for bnei Yeshiva and more oversight to ensure the quality of learning, something a reputable yeshiva should welcome. (Of course, the devil is in the details; I'm just throwing out ideas here.) Or that Chareidim, especially those who've learned for a while already and are ready to move on, join the army at a later age. Another possibility is that Hashem helps us win the war successfully through the means at our disposal where we don't need more people and service. So many scenarios can easily play out that it's not entirely clear that we are at the point where they require our extra help. So for now, until further notice, we just do our part and let Hashem run the world. If they're mad because the burden is not equal (an obfuscating slogan), that’s on them. And so, we keep learning, we keep fighting "selfishly" for our cause (I put that in quotes because caring about Hashem is absolutely not selfish), They won't like this, but hey, that's how democracy works! And we shouldn't worry about them unless they are interested in hearing our side.

I'll add that we should strengthen our learning and Tefilos, and if we do, Hashem will take care of things as He promises many, many times in the Torah!