How involved should rabbis be in politics? A timeless question.
Clearly in the circles of UTJ and Shas it is believed that rabbis are as involved in politics as they are in any other aspect of a persons life. Whether it means telling their people how to vote, instructing their politicians how to act in government, what issues to support or refuse support to, etc. In the secular parties obviously there is no room for the rabbinic influence. The big question has always been in the Mafdal - HaBayit HaYehudi. What role do the rabbis play in a political party that profiles itself as being religious, but also says they do not obligate themselves to listen to rabbinic counsel that they might seek on issues pertaining to the government.
Whatever their actual position is, the past few days have seen heavy pressure from the Haredi parties to exert their influence on the Dati Leumi rabbonim to be more involved in telling Naftali Bennet and Habayit Hayehudi how to act regarding issues of governance, and that they their counsel be followed.
A rabbi can definitely have an opinion regarding politics, and he can say it just like anyone else can. The question is if he should state it as a member of the clergy, as if that gives him some sort of authoritative voice greater than that of other people, or not.
It is fine for a party to choose its leader and say they follow a certain persons decision, whether that person is a rabbi, a guru, a politician, a wise person or a total fool - if thats what the constituents want, if thats who they say they are, then they should follow the counsel they claim to be integral to the party.
If a party says it might consult with rabbis but eventually makes their decisions on their own, perhaps taking into account the advice received from others, including rabbis, it should not suddenly come as a surprise when they do not listen to the rabbis. they never committed to. And if you don't like that, don't support that party, but don't tell them how they should make their decisions.
Rav Cherlo's response is very telling. He makes a dfinitive statement that rabbonim should not get involved in giving political instructions, but should keep to the realm of the spiritual alone.
Rav Cherlo goes on to explain that the political party is made up of messengers of the people who voted for them. They, as messengers, are therefore obligated to act in accordance with the commitment - in a party that committed to follow a certain rabbi or any other specific person, they must do so, as that is why the supporters voted for them. Same if a party has committed to following the decisions of a certain person.
Regarding the Bayit Yehudi party, it can be investigated as to what the party has committed itself to doing, and it should be demanded that they fulfill their commitments. If they committed to the decision making process being in the hands of the party institutions, they must do so and cannot now go to a rav and ask for a psak. Their voters sent them under specific conditions, and changing that is theft and deception of the community that sent them.
At the same time, it is always good to take counsel with the gedolei torah and with wise people, and the spiritual world can definitely advise them and give counsel regarding the appropriate spiritual issues, but their obligation is to their voters, not to the rabbis..
(source: Srugim)
Rav Cherlo's response makes clear the position of the non-haredi religious party. They never committed to following the rabbonim, just to taking counsel from them and taking that advice under consideration. Their actual obligation is based on what they told the voter, in their platform, their decision-making process would be, and whatever they promised during the election campaigns to fulfill. To Rav Cherlo and others, there is a clear distinction between spiritual matters and politics.
Other rabbis, those affiliated with the haredi community (and maybe some others as well in the DL community) would dispute that and say the spiritual encompasses politics just like it encompasses every aspect of a person's life, and therefore they should be the ones instructing the politicians what positions to support or not.
Each one can have his opinion on the matter, but it seems wrong to me for each one to try to dictate to the other what they must do. Each one has its own interests and styles, and each must follow the direction laid out to their supporters.