Democracy and CJC

Editorial

Canadian Jewish Congress traditionally fancied itself the "parliament" of Canadian Jewry. As an organization, CJC has done well at bridging the chasms that exist in the Jewish political diversity in this country, though it has done this in part by avoiding some of the tough questions and focusing on issues upon which the vast majority of Canadian Jews agree.

If CJC were indeed a parliament of Canadian Jewry, it would be, for one thing, a lot more fun to watch. A parliament? Of Jews? They've got one of those in Israel and there's never a dull moment. But the parliament of Canadian Jewry is no longer something to which CJC aspires.

Today, CJC's website glibly declares: "The Jewish community's official voice on public affairs." An official voice is a far cry from the cacophonous contending of ideas typified by a parliament.

If there remained any question as to whether the parliament shtick was done, last week's CJC national plenary put any doubts to rest. An amendment adopted at the meeting means there will be no more direct elections for CJC's national leadership. The president and one-quarter of the board will be appointed by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), the new national Jewish communal umbrella. The others will be appointed by Jewish federations in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, as well as by regional CJC offices. CJC may remain the parliament of Canadian Jewry but, at first glance, the new structure looks a lot more like the Senate than the House of Commons. Like the Senate, it's also heavily weighted towards central Canada: there has never been a national CJC president or chair from the West.

An unusual and blunt letter to the Canadian Jewish News signed by a distinguished array of CJC's senior staff and lay leadership in response to an earlier op-ed criticizing the de-democratizing of CJC, argued that we should "stand and applaud" the changes to CJC's structure. They make the case that the democratically elected regional chairs will sit on the national board, "Hence, elections remain a vital and necessary part of regional governance."

Besides, they point out, we're not losing much. Democracy in the organization has been so fruitless for so long, it's not worth sitting shivah over.

"Indeed," write the 30 signatories to the letter, "in the last 25 years, there has only been one election at a CJC triennial plenary, in 1995. And that one was so riddled with problems that an internal judicial inquiry had to be called. In fact, at times it was a struggle to fill vacant officers' positions and the opportunity for [the people] to be part of that process, despite the veneer of a democratic front, was at best limited, if not nonexistent." That's reassuring.

"Through Bylaw 67," the letter continues, referencing the amendment that ends national elections, "a streamlined executive established through an open and apparent communal procedure recognizes and allows for straightforward flow of and access to information, as well as the ability to respond immediately to events that have an impact on Jewish communal life. It provides an ease of governance that is transparent and fully accountable to the community that funds it."

Well, we're all for that. These are not ordinary times. Immediate response is crucial and CIJA was founded precisely because committees and plenaries are inherently cumbersome and slow. Streamlining sounds like just what the Jewish communal infrastructure needs about now, though we'd be more confident about the streamlining thing, if, for example, the number of signatories to the letter had been limited to, say, a dozen or so.

But what Canadian Jewish Congress should not forget is that image and appearances count for something. Maybe CJC elections have been half-hearted affairs. Maybe the one recent occasion in which they actually had a race devolved into a debacle requiring judicial intervention. Maybe the democratic process is awkward and slow. But there is, at least, a veneer of legitimacy that comes with direct election of leadership, be it that of a nation or an advocacy agency. At the very least, it becomes more difficult to argue one's legitimacy as "the official voice" when that voice is not subject to review through direct elections.

On the other hand, with CJC now very clearly the mouthpiece for CIJA, which is the unchallenged overseer of bureaucratic Jewdom in Canada, "official voice" is probably an accurate and honest, if somewhat Pravda-esque, designation.

^TOP