Is Israel a democracy or a theocracy?

[none]

Don't know if there is much interest about this issue, but isn't Israel a theocracy?

 

[untermensche]

Don't know if there is much interest about this issue, but isn't Israel a theocracy?

It's a country created by murderous Jews, for Jews.

It's a bad idea.

 

[IMContrary]

It has aspects of both. Unfortunately for Israel, in order to get the support and approval of the Orthodox, they allowed them to make many stipulations and pretty much control what goes on in many sectors of the country. I keep hoping that the powers that be will come to realize what going to bed with the devil is costing them. There will never be resolution of the Palestinian problem as long as the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox are allowed to call the shots.

 

[Jayjay]

Democracy. The ultra-orthodox may be calling the shots, but they do so because the people overall agree with them. In my mind a theocracy is something that has institutionalized the power of the clerics and bypassed the need for popular support.

 

[Togo]

Theocracy. The role of religion is written into the constitution, the state exists to support a particular religious tradition, and religious groups get legal preference under the tax and governmental codes. The state openly subsidises religious activity, and demands recognition of it's status as a religious/ethnic state from other states as part of it's overall aims. It's a fairly democratic theocracy, but that's not particularly unusual, as theocratic states go. It's a theocracy rather than a democracy because suffrage doesn't extend to being able to unseat the powers and privileges of the religious over the ordinary citizen.

 

[Sarpedon]

It's a theocracy rather than a democracy because suffrage doesn't extend to being able to unseat the powers and privileges of the religious over the ordinary citizen.

Has that ever been tested?

 

[Togo]

It's a theocracy rather than a democracy because suffrage doesn't extend to being able to unseat the powers and privileges of the religious over the ordinary citizen.

Has that ever been tested?

I'm not sure it would matter. We're talking about how the government is structured, not how likely it is to change or how stable/mutable it is. That's why the US still counts as a democracy, even though oligarchical tendencies in that country are arguably as strong as religious tendencies in Israel. But the government isn't structured as an oligarchy. Israel is structured as a theocracy.

 

[Jayjay]

Togo, according to your definition, half the countries in Europe are theocracies. Mine included.

 

[Togo]

Togo, according to your definition, half the countries in Europe are theocracies. Mine included.

How so?

I may have missed Finland granting special laws to relgious communities, and demanding that other countries recognise it as the homeland of a particular religious group. I certainly missed Finland laying down basic laws as part of its constitution that deal with the treatment of religious sites and declare a particular city to be holy. But then I don't know that much about Finland.

Certainly Israel's government, like any other government, mainly deals with secular matters on a secular basis. So do other theocracies, like Iran. If you have a better definition or way of interpreting the term, I'm happy to hear it.

 

[Jayjay]

The role of religion is written into the constitution, the state exists to support a particular religious tradition, and religious groups get legal preference under the tax and governmental codes. The state openly subsidises religious activity, ...

All these apply to Finland, and I suspect any country with a state religion, which is a lot.

...and demands recognition of it's status as a religious/ethnic state from other states as part of it's overall aims.

This does not. But alone, this is in my opinion not something that makes a country a theocracy either all by itself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Democracy. The fundies have a decent amount of power in matters of religion but little otherwise. They do *NOT* control the country but often get their way because there's no real opposing power block. When there is actual opposition to their desires they don't get their way--for example, the Gaza pullout. The fundies hated that but it happened anyway because the country saw the need for it.

 

[EricK]

According to Wikipedia there are very few theocracies in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Current_theocracies).

When Israel is described as a "Jewish state", it is not so much the religious meaning of "Jewish" which is being used as the racial meaning. According to Wikipedia, 3 prime ministers of Israel are known to have been atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law#Middle_East). Which hardly is what one would expect of a theocracy.

The fact that they hold elections, and no party gets a huge majority of the vote, and different parties win different elections suggests that it is a democracy with relatively free and fair elections.

 

[Hickdive]

Technically, Israel is a secular democracy however it is in practice impossible to separate religion from politics there and the theocratic right heavily influence the state.

Imagine the USA but one without the 1st Amendment. You'd have a very similar form of government to that of Israel.

 

[Arctish]

Technically, Israel is a secular democracy however it is in practice impossible to separate religion from politics there and the theocratic right heavily influence the state.

Imagine the USA but one without the 1st Amendment. You'd have a very similar form of government to that of Israel.

Israel is more of an ethnocracy that incorporates a strong theocratic presence in government.

In the 1970s, Israel's Supreme Court rejected a petition by a Jewish Israeli who sought to change his nationality status from 'Jewish' to 'Israeli'. The ruling stated that "there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish nation...composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry". Then-president of the Court Shimon Agranat said that a uniform Israeli nationality "would negate the very foundation upon which the State of Israel was formed".

IOW if you allow an Israeli citizen to call himself or herself "Israeli" it would undermine all of the laws designed to favor Jews and disfavor non-jews.

 

[Hickdive]

In the 1970s, Israel's Supreme Court rejected a petition by a Jewish Israeli who sought to change his nationality status from 'Jewish' to 'Israeli'. The ruling stated that "there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish nation...composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry". Then-president of the Court Shimon Agranat said that a uniform Israeli nationality "would negate the very foundation upon which the State of Israel was formed".

The very obvious problem with that decision is that it effectively removes nationality from Israel's Arab* and Christian citizens as well as the significant number of people who are ethnically Jewish but culturally secular.

*not to be confused with Palestinians.

 

[Sarpedon]

If it hasn't been tested, I don't see why you can so blithely say that the people of Israel 'can't' change their state's definitions of religious liberty, etc. That they don't want to is another issue.