Published: 13 August 2020
Last updated: 4 March 2024
THE RECENT ELECTION of Deputies of the Jewish Board of Deputies has rocked the community. The election process has put the Board’s legitimacy under a cloud, raising a key question: What is it about this election that is so different from previous elections?
In what amounted to a stealth campaign, at least two members of the Executive led secretive exercise in recruitment of members, a list of preferred candidates whispered to select voters and by virtue of a “disciplined” vote resulted in many longstanding community stalwarts jettisoned. Perhaps two thirds of the Executive lost their positions.
We may never know exactly what happened, but we must ensure such goings-on do not undermine our confidence in this institution into the future. So what can we learn and what do we need to do now?
The result was enormous shock, pain and disquiet.
Was this just a case of the old adage – “Winners are Grinners, Losers can please themselves”? A bad case of “sore losers” or something much more fundamental?
The dark clouds of recent weeks remain heavy over the Board and until it can demonstrate it is honouring its moral and political obligation to the community.
There has been undoubted angst and hurt at an individual level with many feeling that years of dedicated service to the community have been ungraciously swept away. But on the other hand, no one is entitled to a position forever. Renewal and regeneration are the hallmark of good governance. That is the very reason for community organisations to function democratically. It is the very reason to hold elections.
But the integrity of that democratic function rests on community trust, in the hallmarks of healthy democratic organisations, and in particular, honesty and transparency.
There is ongoing concern in relation to:
The way it was done: this election was characterised by stealth. Names chosen, membership added to the electoral rolls, disciplined voting sought, key individuals targeted for removal.
The why of what was done: – what was the purpose of this brutal exercise? Was this a battle for the “soul” of the Board? In which case, what were the issues of concern? What direction would the protagonists like to see the Board take? What were their goals? What were their aspirations?
The expectation the community rightly has of the Board is that it pursues the “common good” on behalf of all of us. That means it has responsibility to unite the community, not divide it.
The ‘who’ behind what was done: We have not seen the protagonists declare their hand, and to the extent we even know who they are, it is because some have been ‘outed’ by media sources and rumours. There has been no declaration of intent, no claimed failings of the Board, no high-minded ambitions, and especially no claims about acting in the interests of the community. Just silence.
Silence is rarely a good response to disquiet or to rebuilding transparency and trust when shattered. From the protagonists, we have had only quiet. At least until yesterday, from the Australian Jewish News, beyond an initial report on the election result, there has only been silence. In fact, deliberate silence if the Sydney Morning Herald is to be believed. A Herald report this week claims the AJN pulled a story, depriving the community of background to the machinations at the Board.
From the Board’s leadership there has only been a collective quiet.
And yet many questions remain unanswered. In addition to those raised above, there are specific issues related to the procedural matters relating to the ballot:
- Why, in an election for 70 Deputies, were 71 declared elected?
- Why did some unsuccessful candidates know about their ouster days before the official ballot was declared, while others were only told the morning of the declaration?
- Why were some people who lost their positions in the election still able to be eligible for Executive positions while others weren’t?
And now the nominations for the Executive have been announced.
There was no contest. Every nominee will be declared successful. A unity ticket perhaps? An attempt to get some people who were defeated reinstated by other means (by switching from being General to Constituent Deputies)?
These outcomes beg the question of what was it all about in the first place?
The expectation the community rightly has of the Board is that it pursues the “common good” on behalf of all of us. That means it has responsibility to unite the community, not divide it. It has an expectation that the Board will represent all views in the community not just some. It has an expectation that debates are open and transparent, and most importantly respectful.
However, the dark clouds of recent weeks remain heavy over the Board and until it can demonstrate it is honouring its moral and political obligation to the community, that its public stand and in its modus operandi, then its legitimacy remains in question.
There are a few things the Board should do immediately to re-establish its bona fides:
- Initiate an independent inquiry into the election, clarifying both technical aspects of the election and the intent of the protagonists in their method and goals
- Initiate a code of conduct requiring any participants running a ‘ticket’ in an election to submit, in addition to personal biographies, a statement of principles, goals and aspirations reflecting their reasons for running a ‘ticket’ rather than as individuals.
- Develop a policy that would avoid recruitment of members whose underlying purpose is the sway an election such as ‘branch stacking’ and other unethical practices, and
- Issue a framework, to which the Board commits, to transparency and working for the common good of the community that enables the community to judge any effort at hijacking the good name and equanimity of the community.
The events of the past few weeks have left bad taste through a senseless “winner takes all” ethos that does not sit comfortably with the plurality within our community. Let’s hope this mentality has been stopped in its tracks, otherwise everybody is a loser.
