by Dror Eydar
The incessant warnings that "democracy is in danger" are a proven method used by the liberal-left, which has turned into a religion.
A left-wing demonstration in Tel Aviv
Photo: Gideon Markowicz
1.
We are in the middle of a historic changing
of the guard – we are witnessing the exit of a withering elite that
still retains significant influence over certain power centers and the
advent of an emerging new elite, most of which has yet to fully
comprehend the weight of its newfound responsibility. This process
represents a massive shift for those who, until rather recently, were
taught that others, not they, dictate norms of thought, behavior and
governance. Quite often, in order to gain independence, one must
question that which came before and perhaps rebel against the
fundamental and accepted norms. It is imperative to cut the apron
strings of the previous ideology for the purpose of shaping an
independent ideology as a new, legitimate elite – one that will
influence not only the outcome of the elections but also public opinion
and culture.
It is important to accept the fact that any
significant change in the old world order will be met with powerful
resistance from the members of the old elite. The resistance won't
prevent the change, but it is important to go beyond legislation and
governance, and establish an intellectual, ideological and cultural
foundation as well. The new elite must listen carefully to the threats
and insults made by the opposite camp, because they reveal the most
painful places at the heart of the struggle over the identity of our
people and our state.
2.
Of all the threats and insults coming from
the opposite camp, the most oft-repeated refrain is that "democracy is
in danger." So let's examine this claim. Democracy is not just rule of
the people by the people, it is a system that allows individuals with
opposing views and values to co-exist. In a democracy, individuals make
minor compromises on their personal freedoms and accept the decisions of
the majority in order to enjoy the many benefits that the state
provides: ownership rights, freedom of expression and religion and the
right to life.
Democracy is also good for the minority,
more than any other system of government. In a democracy, the minority
can protest against the majority in the city square. It can try to
convince the majority and, of course, establish small minority parties
that take advantage of the delicate political dance that the system
dictates to achieve sectoral victories. That is the direction that our
wise sages tried to take us when they taught us to pray for the welfare
of the government. Because if not for its rule, "people would swallow
each other alive."
In this regard, democracy is a tool. It is a
framework where all the opinions and views can compete for the public's
support, and then, by way of parliamentary elections and later by
majority legislation, decisions can be made. Democracy is a tool that
lets the people decide which values they want to adopt and which values
they want to reject.
When people throw the warning that
"democracy is in danger" around, they don't mean this democracy. They
are referring to a different democracy – let's call it the liberal-left
democracy. The aim of this liberal-left democracy is to turn the actual
democracy from a decision-making tool of compromise into a value-laden
ideology, rife with categorical directives. The liberal-left democracy
is actually a secular religion that sees itself as "humanist" and
engages in behavior very similar to conventional religion – it has
temples, priests and religious authorities. Its disciples accept its
principles as absolute truth, and anyone who questions this truth is
excommunicated and burned at the virtual stake. Like with traditional
religions, the degree of faith among the liberals' religion varies
widely – some are more traditional, some are less resolute, and some are
dangerous fanatics.
3.
The problem is that when you turn democracy
the tool into a religion or ideology it gives rise to the kind of
totalitarianism that contradicts the very idea of democracy. When the
liberal democracy is presented as the only option, all other ideologies
are, by default, presented as heretic and wrong. But if the liberal
ideology were to be presented as one desired option among many competing
ideologies, its supporters would have to fight for its continued
existence, just like everyone else, and everyone would acknowledge the
legitimacy of rival ideologies.
Incidentally, when was the last time anyone
heard the Left not just give lip service but actually, honestly
acknowledge the legitimacy of the Right's efforts to advance the
conservative ideology? I made every effort to recall such an
acknowledgement but all I came up with were insults, condescending
attitudes and comparisons to the worst regimes in history.
So why are things the way they are today?
Because the Left perceives its liberalism as an absolute imperative,
without which democracy would collapse. Because of this perception, the
democratic debate has become an existential battle, in which the Left
delegitimizes rival ideologies and calls them a threat to democracy. The
war against any rival ideology is unrelenting, presented as an attempt
to defend democracy. This breeds political correctness – not for the
purpose of protecting the minorities but rather to be used as a weapon
to silence the majority. It also breeds the violence and silencing
tactics experienced by anyone with right-wing or conservative views on
the predominantly, almost homogeneous left-wing Western campuses.
No one ever wonders why the church doesn't
employ Jewish rabbis or Muslim qadis. So does it come as any surprise
that the disciples of the liberal-left church admits (almost) only
people who share its views? Institutions of higher learning in Israel
are funded by the state, so why does the state allow them to behave as
though these institutions belong exclusively to them? But the media,
which is expected to be critical of the monolithic homogeny in the
academia and should be demanding greater freedom of thought, is, in
reality, also horrifyingly homogeneous and behaves in the exact same
way. Think of them as a religious establishment – it may ease your
frustration.
4.
The same left-wing liberal institution
demands the separation of religion and state and vehemently rejects any
religious overtones in any public sphere. It also urges the separation
of the nationality from the state and opposes the right of the Jewish
people to anchor in law their right to self-determination in their only
homeland. Their fear of religious coercion drives them, but don't they
coerce themselves? Don't they force their values on others? Any
democratic agreement includes some degree of coercion from one side or
another. The thing is that the disciples of the liberal-left religion
think of their worldview as the only and absolute truth, thereby
rejecting any other worldview, including the religious one. That's how
the norm was established that one set of values is considered democracy
and another set of values is considered the enemy of democracy.
Several years ago, the Supreme Court
considered allowing the reunification of married couples in which an
Israeli Arab and a Palestinian were separated by geography. The court
almost approved it. Had this reunification statute been approved, it
would have seen Israel comply with the deceptive Palestinian demand for a
"right of return." In the court, the proponents of the reunification
cited the basic law defending Human Dignity and Liberty. But what about
the nation's dignity and liberty? The religious authorities of the
liberal-left reject the state's rights as an invalid consideration.
Ultimately, the petition for reunification
was short one vote. It was denied on security considerations. Both the
proponents and the opponents only took individual rights into
consideration – the right to dignity, under the broad interpretation of
former Chief Justice Aharon Barak, and the right to life, as interpreted
by the majority of the justices. In all fairness, the justices who
rejected the petition did not have the nation-state law in their arsenal
back then.
The notion that the hurt feelings of the
minority should outweigh the majority's right to self-determination is
blatantly undemocratic, because it forcibly imposes the minority's
wishes on the majority. This is particularly true since the opposition
to the nation-state law among the Israeli Arab population is not driven
by a demand for equality – equality already exists – it is driven only
by the fundamental objection to define Israel as a Jewish state.
In any case, the disciples of the
liberal-left faith believe that a state must not impose religious or
nationalist norms on the individual, and they wish to sever these legal
decisions from ideology (except their own). But how is that possible,
when the legislative body, the Knesset, is made up of ideology-based
parties, some of which are religious, that represent Israeli society?
Their solution is to transfer the decisions into the hands of an
"impartial" team of experts, free of ideological considerations, that
confronts the issues only on a purely technical or legal level. That's
how the Supreme Court became the overarching legislative branch in
addition to being the legal branch, and we were sent 2,500 years back in
time to the era of Plato who crowned the philosopher king. Karl Popper
cast Plato as a proto-fascist. In the language of our day: an
enlightened dictatorship. An elite that wants to thrive and to ensure a
plurality of views needs to restore the democracy to its lean, initial
format and allow the people to decide what's best for them.
Dror Eydar
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/10/12/the-liberal-left-religion-and-its-disciples/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment