Tyrany of the majority

Yesterday the Israeli Central Election Committee voted overwhelmingly to ban two Arab political parties--the United Arab List-Ta'al [UAL] (e.g. Ahmed Tibi) and Balad (Azmi Bishara)--from running in the upcoming elections. They were accused of "incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognizing Israel's right to exist." It was the front page story in Haartez and The Jerusalem Post reported:

Twenty-six of the committee's members - all MKs except for former deputy president of the Supreme Court Justice Eliezer Rivlin, who heads the Central
Elections Committee and abstained - voted to disqualify Balad.

Three committee members voted against disqualifying the party, including representatives of Meretz and Meimad. A total of 21 members voted to disqualify UAL, seven voted against (Labor and Meretz representatives) and two abstained.

In 2003, the committee approved a similar request to disqualify Balad from Knesset elections, a decision that the High Court of Justice later reversed.

Rivlin quoted the High Court's 2003 ruling, saying the decision had mandated that there be substantial evidence that a given party supported an enemy's armed fight against Israel in order to disqualify that party from running for the Knesset, not just random and sporadic hostile sentiments expressed by its members.

Attorney Dana Briskman, speaking on behalf of Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz, told the committee prior to the vote that the attorney-general had not found sufficient evidence to disqualify Balad or UAL.

Both parties intend to appeal their case to the Supreme Court, which, is currently expected to reverse the decision.

That the larger parties voted to ban the major Arab parties, caving in to the right-wing parties is a severe blow to democracy in Israel. If disrespect for the Israeli 'reality' is enough to disqualify a political party, then the Jewish haredi parties should also be banned. The case of the Arab parties is completely different than Kach which openly called for violence (against Arabs) and the ignoring Israeli law; i.e. they actively and publicly espoused a racist agenda. Despite the support for the Arab cause, including visiting enemy countries (Syria for example and running away a la Bishara following the 2nd Lebanon War [accused of spying for Hizbollah]), I don't believe they called for the overthrow of Israel or an end of democracy. On the contrary, they have actively demanded a greater sense of democracy, better treatment for its [Israel] Arab citizens even at the cost of reducing the overtly Jewish content/symbols of the state. (That Israel regardless of the Arab parties continually struggles with its Jewish identity--but that's for a different submission.)

The idea of "tyranny of the majority" has been part of policy theory and philosophy since the time of Plato.

While I know that Israel is not a colony or offshoot of the United States, it is instructive to reflect upon some early comments on American democracy on the need of the majority to consider the needs and feelings of minority views and populations.

Two important works, The Federalist Papers (Hamilton, Madison and Jay) and Democracy in America (Alex de Tocqueville) discussed this issue as it sought to create and describe a young American republic.

James Madison in Number 10, following up on the comments made in Number 9 by Alexander Hamilton regarding "The Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection" suggested that the creation of a republic would prevent factions being created that would injure the interests of another (smaller) group and upset the sense of justice throughout the country. For Madison the great divider was the ownership of property.

It is in this vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good. ... The inference to which we are brought is the causes of factions cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought is the means to control its effects.

Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America was the first to specifically use the term "tyranny of the majority" wrote:

I regard it as an impious and detestable maxim that in matters of government the majority of the people has the right to do everything ...

There is one law which has been made, or at least adopted, not majority of this or that people, but by the majority of all men. That law is justice.

Justice therefore forms the boundary to each people's right.

A nation is like a jury entrusted to represent universal society and to apply the justice which is its law. Should the jury representing society have greater power than than the very society whose laws it applies?

Based on the words of both Madison and de Tocqueville in their appeal to the sense of justice, rulers/majorities need to that transcend the immediate national (and natural) desire to exercise its power over its 'enemies' and minority voices.

In Israel, the governing structure of proportional representation only works when each group has the opportunity to have its voice officially heard. Cutting off the voice of the Arabs will only weaken the democratic fibre of Israel. The decision must be reversed by the Supreme Court.