The Florentine Republic and Yisraeli Democracy

 

This article was written by Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks and Roger Froikin

One of the courses that I attend, “Renaissance and the Birth of the Modern World,” discusses the birth of the Florentine Republic in the 16^th century. In researching the subject, I came across the following analysis, by Mark Jurdevic in Humanism and Creativity in the Renaissance, of that entity:

“Political conflict in Florence from the age of Dante to the republic of 1527–30 tended to revolve around and between two competing visions of the republic and two consequent political languages: the one aristocratic, closed, and exclusive, and the other popular, broad-based, and inclusive. For the aristocrats, who most frequently competed amongst themselves for influence and power, politics was rooted in informal private patronage: personal and neighbourhood ties of dependence and obligation, marriages and friendships and the informal distribution of favours." For a moment, as I was trying to focus on the topic of the lecture, I had a déjà vu sensation. It felt as though the author was describing modern day Yisrael.

In my distress, I shared my thoughts with my dear friend, Roger Froikin. Unsurprisingly, he agreed with me.

This article is a joint effort by both of us to shed more light on the subject.

Encyclopedia Britannica defines “Democracy,” the Yisraeli form of governance, as: “a form of government based upon self-rule of the people and, in modern times, upon freely elected representative institutions and an executive responsible to the people…. in their equal right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The term “Republic,” for many of us, suggests a form of government in which the public votes for representatives whose task is to represent their interests to the government. The term may be applied to any form of government that is not ruled by a monarch. “However,” according to Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris, “Florence was a republic in the sense that there was a constitution which limited the power of the nobility (as well as labourers) and ensure that no person or group could have complete political control…” whereas in reality, as history has shown, “political power resided in the hands of middle-class merchants, a few wealthy families, such as the Medici and the powerful guilds.”

 The roots of the Florentine Republic date back to the decline of the Western Roman Empire.

The year was 59 B.C.E. The Roman dictator, Sulla, conquered the area and allotted plots of land to veteran soldiers who were loyal to him. According to some accounts, the city was founded for political and strategic reasons. These were the seeds of what later became the Florentine and other Republics or city-states, each with their own government.

Yisrael, which is much younger, was mostly settled by two groups that entered the land in the early 20^th century. One, primarily Eastern European Jewish idealists, leaning toward secularism and socialism. Later, German Jews, from a community that was quicky assimilating away from Jewish tradition, came as refugees from Nazi Germany. They had business and law experience and tended to the politically leaned left.  These people founded the socialist Kibbutzim, many of which were strategically vital points that bravely defended the People from constant threats of terrorism.

Even though, formally, Florence was a democratic republic, it was under the absolute rule of aristocratic families, such as the Medici, through their control of key institutions and the support of their patrons. Jean Bodin, a French political philosopher, offered a far-reaching definition of the term “republic.” In his canonical study of sovereignty, entitled, Six Books of the Commonwealth (1576), he defines the republic as “the rightly ordered government of a number of families, and of those things which are their common concern, by a sovereign power.”

Of course, the situation in the Jewish State is not identical to what happened in Florence, but the behavioural patterns in the development of new aristocracies in both Renaissance Florence Italy and in the young State of Yisrael are similar. This makes the two, along with a very few other examples worldwide, rather unique, and instructive.

In Florence, the pattern that evolved over time involved a small number of business families. These often competed against one another usually resulting in each family finding its business specialty, its niche, and then forming agreements among them. These were in the form of a constitution, limiting competition and conflict among them while controlling any possible rivalry from outsiders by using a combination of laws and guilds that limited who could enter what position, profession, or job. In short, these families chose to protect their wealth and their status by instituting ways to control one another and those not part of their “club.”

So here we have the pattern.  A new aristocracy built on business, not land and violence, that periodically allies itself to the landed aristocracy for approval and for help as needed in their own struggles. This new elite makes deals, contracts, constitutions to limit conflict, as well as laws designed to suit their purpose, not those of the common people they employed. They marry within their group, their club, handle conflicts by manipulating allies and even the Church, in the case of Florence, at the risk of destroying all they have built at times.

To hold and maintain its status and control, the Yisraeli elite has done pretty much what the business elite in Florence did in earlier centuries. It has acted to do whatever it could to preserve and protect its new status, which was secular, Eurocentric, even a bit hostile to religion and tradition, while holding onto many of the political and social attitudes of the European left.

As in the Florentine Republic, the Yisraeli privileged elite has established laws to protect its immunity and wealth from the competition of those “not in the club.” It has done all it can to prevent erosion of its authority and control, fighting against democratic judicial reform, and opposing political and sometimes, military, change that might open the economy to greater prosperity and participation by other segments of the community.   Even banks run by those that dissented, outsiders, were driven out of business. Business licenses were difficult to get and were available only for those that posed no real threat of competition.  Construction companies were limited in bringing in new technologies, lest they compete with established Histadrut (Labour Union) owned operations. Outsiders that wanted to invest in the nation and bring new ideas that might mean competition, were discouraged by the authorities in connection to the Histadrut, which also represented the interests of this self-appointed ruling class. 

In both, they used their power in institutions such as education while resorting to other means, when necessary, even at the expense of the city in Renaissance Florence or the state, in modern Yisrael. Unfortunately, in Yisrael, this process has been going on for some time already but has reached a point where those on top fear losing so much that they are willing to paralyze the country to prevent change.   

To be fair, we should also point out the contrasts between the two. 

Firstly, unlike the Florentine and other republics, such as the U.S.A., Yisrael does not have a constitution.

Additionally, in Florence, the new business aristocracy shared a culture and religion with the people of the city and accepted the authority of the religious leaders. It transpired most of the time, though with a bit of acceptable skepticism.

In contrast, the new aristocracy in Yisrael, has tried to shed the Jewish past and be like their European counterparts, expressing disdain and even hostility towards Jewish culture and tradition. That has become a source of conflict and division. The reaction from other population segments made it much more difficult to do what the elite class in Florence did. The Yisraeli pattern has had an additional source of social conflict compared to what developed in Italy.

Another difference is the outside threat, the wars and terrorism has caused the nation of Yisrael to pull together and not splinter along religious and ideological lines.

What is certain, though, is that as the Renaissance Florence experience shows, Yisrael could not ignore the demands of the underclass forever.

In Yisrael, this pattern is still developing. To ensure that the Jewish state becomes a true democratic republic with real equal justice and respect for all, a lot of irritations and problems must be resolved, and new policies implemented.

 

Yisrael is not only a Jewish State, first and foremost, it is also Democratic

 

“The Jewish tradition carries very powerful democratic genes.” – Fania Oz-Salzberger

As many here are probably aware, the state of Yisrael is currently undergoing some turbulent times. Part of the public debate that has been raging surrounds the question of whether Yisrael, the National Home of the Jewish People, should give up its Jewish essence to maintain its democratic core.

We hear repeated calls to make the state “Jewish and Democratic.”

And that, dear readers, is precisely what Yisrael is and has been since its inception.

I doubt that there is anyone who would ever not associate Yisrael with Jews. Surprisingly enough, the Jewish substance of the state was decreed by gentiles, not Jews.  Lord Balfour, for instance, was one. In his famous Declaration of November 2, 1917, called for the establishment of a “National Home for the Jewish People” in Eretz Yisrael which, in those days was, also known as “Palestine.”

Then came the San Remo Accord where The Supreme Council of the Allied Powers, which acted as an International Court of Law echoed his call, in article 22 of the “Covenant of the League of Nations” of April 25^th , 1920. That resolution has been anchored in International Law.

The final stamp of approval for what was to become a Jewish state was U.N. Resolution 181 of November 29^th, 1947. It called for the partition of Eretz Yisrael into an Arab state A  N  D  a Jewish state. Yisrael is the name of Jewish state. It has been a Jewish state and will continue to remain that way, de Jure (by law/right) and de Facto (in effect).

The language of Yisrael’s Declaration of Independence which, I trust, was carefully crafted, reinforces, and repeatedly mentions that what lies at the heart of the nascent state is its Jewish essence. Already in its first paragraph, the Declaration mentions the “eternal Book of Books,” our Tanach, our code of ethics that teaches us the values of justice, equality, and freedom which we shared with the world.

These values were constantly preached by our prophets. They are the guidelines that have dictated the objectives of the newly established State, as mentioned in the Declaration “…it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants, it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel.”

What are those values? What was the ultimate message of the “Book of Books” and the “Prophets of Israel?”

The decree to equality, do justice and ensure freedom runs like a golden thread throughout the Tanach, the “Book of Books.”

The concepts of justice and equality are stressed already in the Book of Bresheet (Genesis 18:18-19) where G-d proclaims “…. Since Abraham is to become a great and populous nation and all the nations of the earth will be blessed through him. For I have signaled him out that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing tzedakah and mishpat (justice and law) …..”

“Justice, justice you shall pursue,” commands us the Book of D’varim (Deuteronomy 17:20). It is one of the cardinal obligations of Judaism. In the Torah portion of Shoftim (judges), we are commanded to “Appoint judges and officials for” our “tribes…. and they shall govern the people with due justice. You shall not judge unfairly,” we are told (Deuteronomy 16:18). “The Hebrew Bible,” claims Rabbi Dr. Bradley Shavit Artson, “possesses a passion for justice for the poor, the weak and the despised…. We betray a broad heritage of the Torah,” he continues, “when we fail to recognize justice and righteousness as primary religious categories of Judaism.”

The Tanach focuses on the weak and oppressed by referring recurrently to the “orphan, widow and foreigner” for a reason. A human society is measured by its attitudes towards the powerless. The care and the compassion that the “Book of Books,” the Torah and then the prophets display towards the under privileged of society is probably one of the reasons it has been translated into every possible language. The constant appeal to the advantaged members of society to feed the hungry and the disadvantaged is an appeal to one’s conscience and is justified as either a religious obligation (“I am G-d” Psalm 46:10), a historical rationale (“For you were strangers in Egypt” Deuteronomy 10:19), as carrying an eventual reward (“your days may be prolonged” Deuteronomy 5:16)or, sometimes, a social one (“So they may rest as you” Deuteronomy 5:14).

All these prove that Judaism and the principles of Democracy go hand in hand.

The word “democratic” is not mentioned in Yisrael’s Declaration of Independence. However, the social and “democratic gene” which manifests itself in the values of the “Book of Books” as its basis, the moral values of liberty, justice, and freedom, the pillars of any democracy, which the Declaration espouses were the guiding principles for the founders of the State.

One of the goals of the newly established state, as the Declaration states is to “Ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex: It will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education, and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” The Declaration further appeals to “the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institution.”

The mere fact that such noble social and economic principles coupled with the ongoing quest for justice and the continuous deliberations over the best form of government which are sewn all over the Tanach, the "eternal Book of Books" formed the basis for Yisrael's Declaration of Independence, points to the undeniable fact that democracy is part of the DNA of the Jewish State. 

Saltzberg further asserts that in modern Yisrael today, "anyone pretending that Judaism and democracy are incompatible traditions and that Yisraeli "society must decide between the two is showing a certain measure of historical ignorance. Not only," she claims, "are Jewish and democratic elements of its statehood compatible, but they have been influencing one another for well over 2,000 years."