As regular
readers should know by now, I am not going to recommend here which political
party to vote for in the upcoming elections. I will try to outline what the
Torah expects from our countries rulers, what is most important and what is
secondary. Although none of the numerous parties will follow these directives
exactly, I believe that one should estimate who will come closest to them and
vote accordingly.
What are the
responsibilities of the government?
Before we can
even discuss what needs to be done in different government departments, we need
to clarify whether all of these areas should even be in the remit of the
government. The status quo here is often accepted unquestioningly, but real
leaders must be prepared to think out of the box.
The Rambam summarises
the job of the king:[1]
"His thought and agenda should be to raise the true religion, fill the
world with justice, break the arm of the wicked and fight the wars of Hashem –
as in the first instance we only appoint a king in order to carry out
justice and war, as it says (Shmuel 1, 8:20) "Our king shall judge us,
go out in front of us and fight our wars."[2]
There are a
number of important observations to be made from this job description. The
first of these is an apparent contradiction. In listing the king's agenda, the
first thing that the Rambam lists is 'to raise the true religion.' It might not
surprise us that this is first on the list for the most senior Jewish leader,
but how do we explain the fact that this purpose is not mentioned as our reason
for appointing a king (here the Rambam only mentions justice and war)?
I believe that
the answer is that although ideally a king's driving aim should be 'raising the
true religion,' this is not the reason for us to appoint a king. If this is
truly the nation's first priority, a king is not necessary in order to achieve
it. Conversely, if we have not got to the stage where this is what the nation
as a whole wants, even the most righteous of kings will not be able to force
the issue. Thus while strengthening the religion should be the first item on
the king's mind, it is not part of his job description.
This is not the
case when it comes to justice and war. While most areas of religion are private
in nature, justice and war are inherently public issues that require
leadership. Even if the majority of the people desire justice or are ready to
fight a war, without a strong king or government there will be corruption and a
lacklustre army.
Irreligious
officials
A common dilemma
for religious people at election time is when there seems to be a choice
between a devout but incompetent leader (or party) and a competent but irreligious
one. We have already established that the primary factors we are looking for in
a leader are justice and competence in war, but in this situation we are still
left with the question of what constitutes justice. Can an irreligious leader
who favours secular law over Torah law be considered just?[3]
I believe that
the answer is no, as enforcing secular monetary law in a situation of dispute over
where to litigate is an injustice. However, this needs to be put into
perspective. Justice includes many different facets and one who outwardly
supports Torah law but acts unjustly in other ways is also not just. Thus while
it would be hard to find an irreligious person who is considered 100% just, it
is perfectly plausible that an irreligious official may be more just than a
particular religious one.[4]
In short, my
assertion is that once all factors are considered in defining justness we should
be looking for the leaders who are the most just and competent,[5]
even if they are less religious. In my humble opinion this is also the answer
that common sense dictates and that therefore where necessary, efforts should
be made to reconcile this with any sources that seem to suggest the opposite at
first glance.
One such source sometimes
quoted in these discussions is the ruling of the Rambam that only God-fearing
people may be appointed to positions of authority.[6]
Some have gone as far as to say that based on this, one must not vote for a
party that has any irreligious candidates, as doing this causes people who are
not God-fearing to be appointed.
I believe that
this ruling is mistaken in two ways. Firstly, extrapolating from those
addressed by the Rambam to an electorate consisting of the entire population
over the age of eighteen is anachronistic. In a world where a select few (who
hopefully were themselves God-fearing) were in charge of making appointments
and had virtually free rein to choose whoever they wanted, it was usually
practical to select God-fearing individuals without compromising on leadership
skills. If the same was true today I would also advocate following the
instructions of the Rambam to the letter.
The second
distinction between the Rambam's situation and ours is more fundamental. The
Rambam did not write that only religious people may be appointed. In the
times of the Jewish monarchy and even in the times of the Rambam, there simply
was no such thing as a 'chiloni' who defined himself as being irreligious.
There certainly were people who did not keep the Torah in the way expected of
them, but there was no institutionalised secularism.
The term
'God-fearing' used by the Rambam was precise. We know all too well that there
are many religious people (i.e. those who keep to some form of religious code)
who are not God-fearing. The Rambam was dealing only with religious people, and
insisted that to be a leader even being both religious and courageous is not
enough. Power corrupts, and a leader who acts primarily in his own
self-interests is dangerous. In order to ensure that the leader will serve
national interests, he must also be God-fearing.
Whether or not an
irreligious person can be God-fearing is a question with philosophical and
psychological aspects, and one could argue that a truly God-fearing person
could not remain irreligious. However, the Rambam was not talking about such a
person, as they simply didn't exist.
The crucial
question is if nowadays, when institutionalised secularism does exist, can a
slightly different quality 'substitute for' fear of God in ensuring faithful
leadership. As it is commonly accepted in the world at large that a good leader
is one who acts in the interests of his nation, I feel that the answer is yes. If
all else was equal I would still vote for a religious candidate over an
irreligious one, but rarely is all else equal.
A summary so
far
We have
established that the three most important factors in electing a leader are his
decisions in war and justice, as well as the conscientiousness to always put
the country's needs ahead of his own. I have already written enough about war
in War
and Peace and elsewhere, and 'justice' is far too broad a concept to give
guidelines for here. It suffices to point out which government ministries are
necessary to take care of these areas, before moving on to explaining how some
other departments should be dealt with.
Only the security
(defence) and foreign ministries are directly responsible for issues of war and
national security. Justice is obviously administered by the justice ministry,
but the interior and interior security ministries are also necessary to keep
law and order. The finance ministry is also critical in the management of funding
for all of this. There is broad consensus over the centrality of these six
government offices, although many would argue that several others are as
important or close behind. We need to try to explain why the Rambam apparently
disagrees.
Education
Throughout our
history, the Jewish People have always put education at the top of our
priorities. Many centuries before most of the world was literate, R' Yehoshua
ben Gamla, the Kohen Gadol (in the first century C.E.[7])
instituted the appointment of teachers for all from the age of six or seven.
This institution was for the benefit of orphans who did not have a father to
teach them – if there was a father he could be relied upon to ensure that his
children received an education.[8]
The above is a
strong source for the need for a centralised education system. However, it must
be pointed out that this institution was not made by the king, or even by the
Sanhedrin. It was made by the Kohen Gadol, who would not normally have had
access to public funds to pay all the teachers. In Ma'aser-
religious income tax I explained that the main role of the entire tribe of
Levi (headed by the Kohen Gadol) was to teach Torah. It would be reasonable to
suggest that most of the teachers were Kohanim and Levi'im, whose livelihoods
came from t'rumos and ma'asros.
It would not
have been practical to enforce the separating of t'rumos and ma'asros, and as I
wrote in the same post there were periods of time when many did not give. This
meant that funding of the education system depended on the will of the people
and not on the government. The role of the government is to lead, but in areas other
than security and justice it is not to enforce.
Nowadays, although
the people are still united when it comes to the importance of education, there
is a huge divide when it comes to how we choose to educate our children. Until
there is consensus, there is no moral basis for any attempts by one group to
impose their educational philosophy on others. Thus in my view, it is a
travesty of justice for the government to use our taxes to fund only education
systems that they approve of, or to vary the level of funding based on the
materials taught.
That being the
case, the only reason to raise money for education from taxes at all is to be
able provide for those who cannot afford to pay for the education of their
children by themselves (most could afford it if the money we pay in taxes for
education was returned to us). This is an issue of welfare and not of
education, so my (perhaps extreme) conclusion is that the entire Ministry of
Education could be closed down.
The next thing to
explain is what the role of the Ministry of Welfare should be (if anything),[9]
but this and other government departments will have to wait for another post.
[1] I will not discuss here how in an ideal world we would restore the
monarchy of the House of David, as we are a long way from this and for those of
thus not yet blessed with prophecy, there is no way of telling what the world
will look like when it does happen. My assumption here is that the government
of today should (for the time being) be doing the same job that a king is
supposed to do. I also assume that they have more or less the same halachic
powers, a point proven by R' Shaul Yisraeli in Amud Hayemini siman 7 (available here).
[2] Hilchos Melachim 4:10
[4] Furthermore, in the current situation even the most
well-intentioned leader would not have the power to restore Torah Law, whereas
increasing the justness of the courts (and the government) in other areas is more
practical.
[5] If there is a conflict between justness and competence I have no
way of proving which should come first, but common sense should dictate that in
this situation we would need to weigh up the respective damage caused by the
corruption of one candidate and the incompetence of the other.
[7] It is explicit in Gittin 56a that his widow was alive at the time of
the destruction of the second Beis Hamikdash (c. 70 C.E.).
[9] Some of the foundations for this have been discussed in Tzedaka-
Who gets what?
