This column was first published in the newspaperJordan’ On October 26, 1934.
***
democracy.
A painful subject – that is, for my generation, and not so much for the youth. Today’s youth is very little interested in these questions, even if they say or believe that they are, indeed, interested in whether the regime is really democratic or not. It is possible, of course, that he is “interested” in this question, but for us, the elders, there is more here than “interest” – it stings and hurts us. My generation grew up with a strong belief that a regime, which is built on general suffrage and the responsibility of the government, provides the best and most complete answer to all political problems, and in the future also to social and economic problems.
Perhaps, the only blow that we were satisfied with, if democracy could cure it too, was anti-Semitism, because it was hard to forget the Dreyfus matter; However, this was the only exception. Everything, except for this blow, will be solved, improved, sorted out in the best way by democracy.
We held onto this belief until the first years after the war. We didn’t want to believe what we saw, when the eyes started to see something else ended up upside down, contradicting our faith. But now it is impossible to insist: not everything is fine in democracy, and for our generation it is a slap in the face, or worse – a stab in the heart.
A short time ago I was shown an issue of a socialist newspaper, which contained a very harsh article against the writer of these columns and against the party to which he belongs. What, actually, the author is so angry about, I no longer remember; However, I cannot forget one of his comments, even if it is a completely side comment. I no longer remember the exact wording of the comment, but it is understandable: “Even if the great majority of the German people voted completely freely in favor of Hitler and in favor of his Hitlerian system, nevertheless it would not be a democratic regime.”
I absolutely agree with the socialist author here; However, if this is the case, then we all face the question, what exactly is “democracy”. What is the nature of that sign, or principle, or principle, according to which it is possible to distinguish between a democratic and an undemocratic regime?
In my youth it was clear: whoever is elected by a free vote of the majority, is elected democratically, and any regime or law, which is approved by a majority of opinions in a general free vote, is a democratic law or regime. And it never occurred to us, not even in our wildest dreams, that a democratic vote could ever lead to anti-democratic results in the end.
In general, an upside down world is now in front of us. Before, for example, we knew that the political influence of a church is always reactionary, the influence of an army is even worse. However, today the churches in Germany (both Lutheran and Catholic) are fighting for the principle of elections, and all the friends of freedom and democracy in the greater world wish them success and their joy will be complete, if the churches emerge victorious from their war with Hitler’s regime (although no one is satisfied that this regime rests on the great majority of the German people), and what concerns the German Reichswehr[i] – After all, today all the democrats on both sides of the Atlantic dream of increasing the influence of the Reichswehr to the maximum extent, because they see it as the only force that can stand against known trends, which they consider dangerous. upside-down world.
***
Here, for example, is France. Take the recent provincial elections, which ended on Sunday, October 14. Although these elections do not have a direct political impact, they always show, and this year in particular, the political mood in the country. This year expect that the elections will show a huge revolution in the mood of the people. Stavisky thing[ii], incompetence (or worse) of the police, which was discovered in the Stavisky case, the murder of Judge Prince which revealed unpleasant matters – and the worst of all is that everyone feels that not everything has been revealed yet; The February six shootings[iii]; The assassination of King Alexander[iv], which was followed by the resignations of two ministers and the dismissal of two of the most important high-ranking officials – a series of deep shocks, which revealed numerous shortcomings in the administration. Everyone is dissatisfied, everyone demands that you be “different”.
The socialists form a united front with the communists and call the voters to them, and on the other hand half a dozen fascist parties call the voters to them… The results of the district elections: everything as before, a small change, almost imperceptible – in favor of the right and the left, but the overwhelming majority again expressed their opinion according to the wording The old of the old French bourgeoisie: “in the way of progress but in moderation”.
I mention this not because I think this judgment is just – I don’t know. I am a guest here and it is not my business to praise or condemn. I want to emphasize only one thing: the result of these elections shows a great and great “democratic” sense. France is not Germany and it is not Italy, where the democratic institutions are something brought from abroad, learned outside the country. For the French, “democracy” is like for us, the Jews, monotheism, in contrast: I planted myself. The French masses, and especially the large province, cannot be “pulled” by propaganda either to the fascist dictatorship or to the communist one.
And yet it is clear to anyone looking that they are all dissatisfied, and dissatisfied with “excessive democracy” precisely. The French constitution is even more democratic than the English one: in England the Prime Minister has the right to dissolve the House of Representatives and hold new elections to ask the people who is right in the conflict, the Prime Minister or the House of Representatives. However, a French House of Representatives must not be dissolved without the consent of the Senate, and it is very difficult for the Senate, finally elected by those voters, to give such consent. That is why the deputies of the parliament feel themselves so safe and strong: they are the masters and not the government.
Nothing can be a democratic regime than this? But the result is that here the governments play like children with a rubber ball. Ministers are allowed to control the average bill for three to four months, and then they are removed. And sometimes not even months, but weeks or even a few days.
Today, Gaston Dumarg shouts[v], and he himself is an old democrat, that it is impossible to continue like this. He demands to give the French Prime Minister the same right that the English Prime Minister has: to dissolve the Parliament even without the consent of the Senate. So, he hopes, the deputies will be more careful in their ball game in the ministries. Mr. Leon Bloom[vi], the leader of the French Socialists, says this is an anti-democratic demand; And from the side of logic – Bloom is right because this reduces the power of the elected deputies, and increases the power of the government. but –
But others go further. There is a lot of talk here about the “9th of July plan”, as it is called. Immediately after the bloody events of February, a free committee of young intelligentsia was founded, whose goal was the amendment of the constitution. Only absolute supporters of the democratic principles were admitted to the committee; Both the monarchists and the communists were removed from the committee. A well-known writer was chosen as the head of the committee, who once dismissed the very idea of a “dictatorship” in a famous drama. They sat on the bench for several months, and on the ninth of July they finished their work and published its decisions.
They go even further than Dumarg: they demand that in the event that a parliament removes a government, that parliament is considered dissolved anyway, and new elections must be held. It was a decision made unanimously by young businessmen, some of whom are socialists or radical-socialists. The trend is clear: to further limit the power of the democratically elected deputies, to put each of them in such a situation that they know that when they vote against a government, they are putting themselves before new elections, and for new elections endless labor is required and also a lot of cash for propaganda – and where Taking all that cash these days?
***
What conclusion follows from all that is said here, or what moral, I do not know; Secondly, it is not really the business of a Zionist without a homeland – because until we have trouble in our country, I will have a lot of time to sit down and review this question, and free association like our other parties has nothing to do with it.
However, if we look from the side, from a purely theoretical point of view, this is a serious problem. We see countries, great and ancient civilized countries, in which the blackest reaction can be accomplished not by putsch, but by the sacred customs of universal suffrage; We see a pure, true, rooted democracy – which cannot be governed because the right of universal suffrage has created a dozen different parties here, none of which has and will never have a majority. Every week a new combination can emerge, which will bring down the government just like that without any political reason. In one of the countries we find such a situation, in which democracy sees its only hope through the influence, or perhaps the intervention, of the Pope or the feudal officer corps…
A “revisionist” world and at every step they demand “revisionism”. And I am beginning to think that this is certainly how it should be: every Torah needs an interpretation that will adapt it to the conditions of the time; And sanctities are only the deepest essences of those principles that we think of as saints, but in order to save the essence you sometimes have to be fearless: do a “revision”, write a commentary.
[i] German army between the years 1919-1935. According to the constitution of the Weimar Republic, the Supreme Commander of the Reichswehr was the President of the Republic.
[ii] A case of governmental corruption that erupted between December 1933 and February 1934 during the Third French Republic.
[iii] A mass riot by right-wing activists in Paris, near the National Assembly building, during which police officers shot dead 15 demonstrators.
[iv] The king of Yugoslavia who was assassinated during a visit to France in October 1934, by an assassin member of the ‘Macedonian Revolutionary Organization’.
[v] Between 1924 and 1931 Dumarg served as President of France during a period that included 12 different governments. He served two terms as Prime Minister of France: for six months in 1914 and for six months in 1934.
[vi] French Jewish politician, leader of the SFIO party (predecessor of the Socialist Party) and founder of the Popular Front. Served as prime minister of France three times: 1936-1937, for about a month in 1938, and again for about a month after World War II.
(viewed 1 times, 1 visits today)