Shas is often criticized for their undemocratic system of determining party policy and representation. It is all dependant on one man, Rav Ovadia Yosef. He decides who will be Shas representatives in Knesset, how high or low on the party list, and how they vote on the various issues.
Today is no exception to that criticism.
I have my own problems with Shas, including their voting record and their lack of loyalty to any specific issue other than staying in a government coalition with nice jobs. They, generally, do not take leadership on any issues. They usually do not even present their own positions and/or vote based on what they really think.
For example, in the current campaign for the elections of President of Israel which will take place next week, Shas has come out as a major force. I am not sure why. Their 12 votes are just as important, no more and no less, than any other 12 votes. But that is not the point. They are being declared as the ones who will sway the elections one way or the other.
OK. That's fine by me. So Shas is the current king maker. Let them either state which candidate they prefer and be over with it, or keep it secret and not say anything.
Yet, what does Shas do? They have to go over the lists and see how everybody else is voting. Their problem and concern is that they do not want to vote with the losing position. It does not matter if the expected winner is someone they want to vote for or not. They have to go over the lists of MKs and who they promised to vote for. After Shas decides who is going to win, they will decide who to vote for.
In other words, it does not matter who they really think should be president. What matters is that they come out having voted for the winner.
But that is besides the point. The criticism leveled at Shas is that they are undemocratic in their process. One person decides what happens in every aspect of the party.
I do not know why this criticism is leveled at Shas. Many of the other parties work in similar fashions. The Kadima party, for example, was established by one person (Ariel Sharon). A bunch of politicians joined him for various reasons. Ariel Sharon, and he alone, decided who would be placed where on the Kadima list. He alone decided the issues and the Kadima position on the various issues. Even now, a year and a half later, Kadima still has no method of selecting positions and representation other than by the person leading it at the time, or with the consultation of the top 5 or so people in Kadima.
And I never heard any criticism on the undemocratic system within Kadima.
In other words, it is ok for a corrupt politician to decide on his own who will lead things and what their positions will be and that is pure democracy. But when a Rabbi does it, it is undemocratic.
Another example is the Pensioners Party. They did not have primaries to decide their standings in the party. It was decided all by Rafi Eitan.
Do the Arab parties have primaries? Not last I heard. Do any of the small parties that crop up every election season have primaries to decide their systems? Mostly not.
Yet the only one deserving of criticism seems to be the haredi parties, and Shas and Rav Yosef more so.
Honestly, if I was trusting an undemocratic system, I would prefer to trust Rav Ovadia Yosef (even if I did not like with some of his decisions or methods) than corrupt politicians to decide things undemocratically.
The truth is Kadima was criticized as being a 1 man show and not having primaries.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between Haredi parties and all the others is party discipline. If ROY says vote for A they all vote for A period. As you know, in Kadima, Pensioners, Labor etc. there is very little party dicipline, each MK does what he wants.
Interestingly enough, yesterday's Yated commented on this issue as well. They brought up the point how everyone always criticizes the Charedim that they vote the way the Gedolim say, while no one criticized Amir peretz for telling his supporters to vote for Ami Ayalon. That was considered to be politics as usual. Again, the obvious difference is the level of choice, the average Charedi has no choice while Amir Peretz's people do and many will not listen to him.
kadima never really came under criticism for it. it was mentioned, sort of in passing. It was explained then as being a new party and the systems are not yet in place. a year and a half later there are still no systems in place and no criticism...
ReplyDeletecharedim have choice. most choose to listen to the gedolim, while some choose not to...
Also, the Yated's comparison is not that good. Amir Peretz is makign a suggestion when he says who to vote for. He knows some people will listen and some won't. he has no standing like that of the gedolim that people think they have to listen to him. People who like him and think his agenda is worthy will vote as he suggests and others will not.
With the gedolim people feel compelled to vote as they say. When they make a statement, they are not merely suggesting people do so, but are telling people to do so. Yes, not everybody listens, but most do.
why does it worse with shas?
ReplyDeletei'm not sure what this means, but i'll repeat the common response: we expect better from rabbis.
i'm upset with shas not just because they will support peres (and the manner in which that support was decided), but because of the reasoning: he contributed to judaism.
huh? vote for him out of respect because he is one of the few founding statesmen. because he established the country's nuclear program. because he is committed to social issues. because he will reward you the best. whatever. while he is not known for being antagnistic to religion, what exactly did he do to further it?
we expect better from rabbis means they should be more democratic in their decisions? why is that better? since when are rabbis democratic in their decision process?
ReplyDeleteI have problems with shas, but this is not one of them...
I agree with your criticism of why they are selecting peres. furthermore I will add that it is hakaras hatov for all that he has done over the years to help religious judaism. you give someone the presidency for hakaras hatov? someone who already said he would pardon marwan barghouti? give it to him because he deserves it for reasons x, y and z, but hakaras hatov is not a reason.