Democracy's Imperfections Are Its Strength (Purim 5785)

Dear Friends and partners,

“It can’t happen here,” thought the Jews of Susa on the eve of their planned extermination, “not here; this is the country of Cyrus the Great!”

They were right to be shocked. Persia’s emperor Cyrus had allowed – and helped – the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple after the Babylonian Exile. We sing to that glorious moment every time we recite Psalm 126.

“When the Lord made us return of Zion, were like dreamers.Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing.”

The Persians had not only reversed our first exile, but also created a uniquely pluralistic empire. Archeologists have found Cyrus’ decree, mentioned in the Book of Ezrah, proving both the veracity of the Biblical account of the “return to Zion” and the tolerance by the Persian Empire. In it, he takes pride in the fact that,

My vast army moved about Babylon in peace; I did not permit anyone to terrorize the people of Sumer and Akkad. I also collected all the people who had been scattered and returned them to their homes."

The peaceful coexistence of Jews and Persians can be seen in the Hebrew language to this day. The word “pardes” (orchard), comes from the Persian parai-daeza (walled garden). When we call a treasurer “gizbar,” we are using a deformation of the Persian “ganzabara”. When we argue about religion, we use the word “dat”, picked from the Persian word for “law.” 

Our religion was also greatly influenced by the Persians. The Book of Daniel, written in the Persian period, is the first explicit mention of resurrection and final judgment (Daniel 12:2), a theme strongly present in Zoroastrianism. And if you have the ketubah from your marriage, you should know it follows Persian legal traditions.

The incredulity of Persian Jews when Haman the Wicked so easily convinced King Assuerus to massacre the Jews is understandable. If the fact itself was shocking, the ease with which Assuerus’ acquiesce to betray his ancient allies was outstanding. He had no animosity towards Jews. He was just a frivolous monarch, interested in hunts and parties, akin to a modern politician who spends his tenure golfing. The extermination of the Jews would be for him another excuse for a feast, another way to keep his people, and himself, entertained. Mass murder for fun; ancient Persia’s version of reality TV.

Though the Persian kings had been extremely benevolent toward Jews, our ancestors missed a key element: the Persian kings were, well, kings after all. A king has absolute power, and by definition you are subjected to his whims. Arbitrariness and impulsivity are not bugs but features in an absolute monarchy. Yes, a king may choose to bound himself to norms, but he’s not obliged to. Even if by temperament or convenience, the king decides to be bound by laws, there’s no guarantee. Once the system invests unchecked power on a single person, it’s only a matter of time until they use it against you.

The Purim story would have been impossible in a modern liberal democracy. There could be a Haman, but the free press would have denounced him, the courts would have intervened, the army would be bound by laws not to execute his illegal orders, and the parliament could have impeached Assuerus.

Today, exhausted by antisemitism and crushed by the betrayal of our allies, we feel the temptation of putting our lives in the hands of autocrats who seem to like us and would protect us from harm. It’s not totally crazy to hope for that. After all, antisemitism is pervasive, and convincing millions of people not to hate us seems impossible. So isn’t it more efficient to back a single “strong man”? We know that there may be a trade-off in the form of some personal liberties, but maybe it’s worth it for our security.

The other temptation is, of course, to just give up on one’s identity, as Haman wanted the Jews of Persia to do. Today, the far left is demanding just that. Jews are welcome, as long as they betray their own and submit to the dogmas of Critical Race Theory. Both of our modern  authoritarianisms, left and right, demand fealty—one to an ideology, the other to an individual.

Purim shows us that a tradeoff that bestows unchecked power in a man or an ideology is not worth it. It will always come back to bite us. The Jews of ancient Persia should have known that. The history of our slavery in Egypt happened for the exact same reason. “A Pharao that did not know Joseph,” arbitrarily changed the kingdom’s policy towards the Israelites.

Democracy doesn’t eliminate antisemitism. The last few years have proven that, but that’s not new. Take the infamous Dreyfuss Affair. In 1894, in democratic France, the birthplace of human rights, a Jewish officer was falsely accused of treason and condemned to life imprisonment on the aptly-named Devil’s Island. Many use this event as an example of democracy’s inability to protect Jews. Alas, the case proves just the opposite. Because free press existed, Emile Zola published his famous “J’accuse,” forcing a public debate that led the government to re-open the case. The parliamentary opposition forced the appointment of an impartial prosecutor, and the debates exposed the bias lurking in the French army.

Dreyfussards and Anti-Dreyfussards fought in the open, and the former won. Dreyfuss was cleared and indemnified, and the leader of the pro-Dreyfuss faction, George Clemenceau, eventually became president. Had Louis XVI condemned Dreyfuss on a fit of whim or political expedience, poor Alfred would have rot in Devil’s Island for life. 

Autocracies – either ideological or based on personality cults – may offer temporary respite, but it’s fleeting. In the first decade of the Soviet Revolution, Jews experienced a dramatic decrease in antisemitism. We know how that ended. The Jews that had backed the revolution were murdered by the paranoiac delusions of a Stalin with unchecked power.

Many Jews embraced Mussolini – one of them, Margherite Zarfati, quite literally, as she became his lover. They thought he would provide order after the chaos of the Great War and protect them. The elimination of constitutional guarantees was the proverbial egg one had to break to make the omelet of security. But when Il Duce betrayed the Italian Jews, sent them to camps, and allied with Hitler, there were no courts or parliaments to prevent it.

The truth is stubborn: not a single liberal democracy ever persecuted Jews, and virtually all autocracies did at some point or other.

The Jews of Persia had no choice; that’s how the world operated in their times. But we have a choice. For them, autocracy was a given; for us, it’s a choice that many are deliberately making. Democracy isn’t perfect, but that’s why it protects us. It’s the only system that admits its own imperfections, providing checks, balances, and fail-safes. Yes, that makes the system clunky and slow, but every “perfect” system, every infallible leader, ended up causing indescribable tragedy.

Neo-Marxism and Far-Right Populism have always threatened the best system we have ever had. What has changed in recent years is that many of us seem to be captivated by these new pied pipers, following them blindly to our oblivion. We seem tired of the messiness of freedom and want the bliss of submission.

But the warning of Purim couldn’t be more prescient. The story ends well because frivolous Assuerus, susceptible to flattery, pretty women, and good banquets, reversed his extermination decree with the same triviality as he had established it. But do you want to risk it all on the whims of a dictator? Are we willing to roll the dice?