The Israeli voter cannot directly influence his elected representative. This is due to the fact that the voter does not know his elected representative personally, but only from a party Knesset list. Knesset members therefore do not feel any obligation towards those who elected them, so they don’t act according to their wishes.
originally posted at http://macharnews.com/
Political Scientist Professor Paul Eidelberg thinks that the electoral system in Israel is destructive, and doesn’t allow for true democratic discourse and a stable government. District-based elections won’t cause a revolution, but they would be a necessary first step that could advance a process of healing for Israeli democracy.
Professor Eidelberg, is Israel a democratic state?
“From a social perspective, there are democratic elements in Israel since there aren’t major disparities in status. That is to say, the concept of ‘one man one vote’ still exists, and there are periodic multi-party elections. If we go deeper, though, we find that the problem is actually much larger. Here I’ll quote one of the big thinkers of the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville. He describes a system that was in place in France during the revolution as a “Totalitarian Democracy” even though there were democratic elections – his phraseology. Regarding Israel, I’ll mitigate it slightly and call it a democratically elected tyranny. I’m certain that De Tocqueville would have completely agreed with me.”
What characterizes our electoral system?
Separation between citizens and their elected representatives. Very simple. There is evidence that two years after the establishment of the state, Knesset members and community leaders tried to formulate district elections. Ben Gurion rejected it. He said, ‘Separate citizens from the government’. The system remained, and the result is that until today, successive Israeli governments have ignored the citizenry. As of today, only Holland and Israel operate by this electoral system.
Do you have a tangible example of this?
I think that the 2003 elections demonstrate this very well. The people voted Right, and the Likud was in power. But Sharon nullified the results of 2003 when we decided to do the Disengagement. If you completely nullify national elections in this way, we have to ask ourselves if this is really a democracy.
What can you do? 23 Likud Knesset members voted for it!
Absolutely correct, but here I want to point out the next issue. These 23 Knesset members can do such a thing because they don’t have to answer to their voters. The voter does not vote for someone who is running against an opponent, but rather for a list of people sponsored by the party. Let’s assume that these 23 Likud Knesset members had to compete in regional elections against an opponent for a Knesset seat. What would the opponent say? He would say, ‘My honorable opponent cheated you. In the last elections he opposed the Disengagement, but in actuality he voted for it. He cheated you and stole your vote.’”
But it’s impossible to fulfill promises, no? Nevertheless, there’s a different perspective from down here than there is from up there.
Look, we’re not talking about everyday matters here. It could be that a candidate would declare “I’m going to lower taxes” or “I’m going to increase welfare” and not fulfill his word. In these matters there can be changes in the final result. But we’re talking here about matters of life and death! We’re talking about the borders of the state of Israel!
Let’s assume that I vote for a regional representative because I think he faithfully represents my opinions. Can I be sure that he will actually express my outlook?
You will never have absolute certainty that the man you voted for will do what he says he will do. That’s how it is in any system. But what are the chances that that very same man will break his word if he knows that in the next elections he will have a competitor for his Knesset seat? It’s important to know something else: Even if the electoral system will be the most perfect possible, that doesn’t mean that there will be people who will make decisions and do exactly what you want. There are no guarantees. Politics is not mathematics, but a question of probabilities. So even if you design a system that gives the highest possible chances that the person elected to serve will actually stand by his words and promises made during the campaign, all you will get is a certain probability and chance. Certainty you will not get. There is no certainty, but with local/regional elections, the chances are much greater that those elected will be faithful to their platform.
How will the rights of minorities like Arabs and Haredim not be harmed by a regional election system? Their representation would necessarily decrease.
First of all, that depends on the geographical apportioning of the electoral regions. If a small party’s voters are concentrated in a specific area in the country, the party may win as one of the two biggest parties in the area, and so it will have influence on national policy. More than this, did the small parties in Israel that opposed the retreat from Gaza succeed in preventing it? Experience shows that a small party can help the minority group that it represents more if it operates within the framework of a large party.
Professor Paul Eidelberg received his doctorate in Political Science from the University of Chicago. He is the founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in Jersualem, and a member of the advisory board of the Ariel Institute for Political Research.
In his book “Jewish Statesmanship,” Professor Eidelberg analyzes the destructive defects that exist in the political institutions in Israel. He shows that the public discourse in Israel suffers from cognitive dissonance, and that this discourse prevents the striving for the realization of Jewish goals. Eidelberg thus redefines key concepts such as “religion and state,” “democracy” and “citizenship,” so that they are congruent with the idea of an authentic Jewish national homeland. The book ends with a first draft of a constitution, based on Jewish principles as well as democratic principles.
A recent “Machar” poll demonstrates the lack of basic trust held by the public in relation to Israel’s Democracy.
More than half of the Israeli public does not believe that their vote in the election booth has any impact.
In a poll taken by the Geocartography Research Institute for “Machar”, a cross section of the Jewish population in Israel was presented with the following question: “How much influence do you think your vote in the national election to the Knesset bears on what happens in Israel?
No influence Insignificantly Moderately Considerably Greatly Unsure
The results of the poll show that 71% of the public believe that their participation in the election bears no more than a moderate influence on the events and decisions made in Israel. More than half of those surveyed, around 51%, think that the influence of their vote is insignificant to none. Only 23% of the population feels that the way they vote has any significant impact.
The results of the poll are clear: Israel’s citizens are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the operation of the most fundamental of Democratic processes— the power to vote. When the majority of the public feels as though they can no longer rely upon national elections to influence the shape and direction of their country, it should be questioned whether that country can still consider itself to be Democratic.
Very low public trust in government institutions in Israel
In parliamentary Democracies, a distinction can be drawn between directly and indirectly elected institutions. In Israel, the public is only able to elect the Knesset and the political parties.
For many years, the Knesset has continually obtained the lowest approval rates among all public institutions in Israel, with the exception of political parties. As demonstrated by the diagram below, these approval rates have followed a relatively steady pattern of decline.
The Knesset’s approval rates for 2000-2009 (including percentage figures)
At the beginning of 2000, the Knesset’s approval rate stood at around 50%, but in the next ten years it fell by around 20%. And although in the immediate aftermath of the 2009 election the approval rate improved slightly, the question remains: why does the only nationally electable Democratic institution in Israel— the Knesset—rate so poorly in the public’s estimation?
One possible explanation is a perceived lack of accountability. Elected representatives do not appear to feel obliged to explain their behavior, however erratic, to the public and seem even less inclined to seek public approval for their actions and decisions. In 2009, 63% of those surveyed believed that Israeli politicians do not care about public opinion, and only 18% of those surveyed believed that they could influence government policies. In other words, Israel’s citizens are painfully aware of the fact that from the moment they are elected into office, their leaders operate on the premise that they can effectively afford to ignore their electorate.
The lack of public trust in the Knesset reflects a fundamental paradox in Israeli politics. On the one hand, the Knesset continually suffers from very low approval ratings. And yet, it is the only public institution that is subject to nationwide elections, in which every citizen over the age of eighteen can participate.
* This data has been obtained from the website of the Israeli Democracy Institute, based on polls measuring the Democracy index for the years 2006 – 2009. URL:www.idi.org.il
No comments:
Post a Comment