Israel’s new government was voted
into existence on June 13 by the narrowest of margins – 60 votes in favour, 59
against, and one abstention. Life is
full of uncertainties. Should a vote of
confidence be called in the Knesset at any time in the next four years when just
one government supporter has recently passed away, or just one happens to be
confined to a hospital bed, the country faces the possibility of a government
defeat and yet another general election.
Many opine that a government in
so precarious a political position will be unable to take policy initiatives of
any substance. This may indeed be so,
but there is one area where it could make a difference.
The government is a coalition
formed from no less than eight of the twenty parties that won seats in the new
parliament. In one way this could be
considered a wonderful example of the national interest trumping purely party
concerns, but there is a downside. Not a single Israeli voter in the 2021
general election will see the policies they voted for put into effect. This is because there is almost no connection
between the votes cast by ordinary citizens in the polling station and the nature
of the government that eventually emerges.
Their votes can simply help the party of their choice to be represented
in the Knesset by some remote politicians of whom they know nothing.
In many democracies the party
that receives the most votes forms the new government. That is the case in the US and the UK. Because of its system Israel is among those
where elections are followed by weeks and often months of back-room haggling
and bargaining. During this process
political parties usually water down, or sometimes abandon, key aspects of the
political programmes they presented to the electorate. The loser in this unsavoury process, which is
often about the offer of Cabinet posts in exchange for support, is the voter.
The United Kingdom is divided into 650 constituencies, each of which elects one member of parliament. The candidate in each constituency who wins the most votes is elected, regardless of how many votes are cast for other candidates. This is known as “first past the post” (FPTP), a system also popular across the States, although other voting methods are also used locally. Like all electoral systems, it is far from perfect. In the UK, because proportional representation does not feature, its main disadvantage is its failure to match the national voting pattern with seats in parliament. Its main advantage is that all voters have their own MP, to whom they can go for help regardless of political affiliation, while all MPs take a particular concern for welfare of their own constituencies.
“The urgent need for electoral
reform of Israel's parliamentary system,” says the Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs, “is widely, if not universally, recognized.” It goes on to point out that electoral reform
can be enacted only by the Knesset, which is composed of parties and
individuals whose political life may be threatened by that reform. “Political
suicide,” remarks the JCPA, “has never been popular -- certainly not in Israel.”
Radical reforms have been
suggested by committees and working parties over the years, but none has got
past a first reading in the Knesset.
Certain small changes to the electoral system have indeed been carried
out, together with one short-lived experiment in the direct election of the prime minister, but the current model has never been significantly altered.
If the domestic political turmoil
of the past two years reveals anything, it is surely that Israel’s current
electoral system is far from perfect.
This seems the ideal opportunity to put it under the microscope, with a
view to considering what changes might be desirable and practicable.
How might such a scrutiny best be
effected? The JCPA’s own suggestion
strikes a fiery note. It asserts that
the only way to bring about reform is by what it calls a “citizens’ revolt” – a
major campaign aimed at gathering up to a million signatures on a petition
demanding electoral reform, to be followed by a march to Jerusalem when the
petition would be presented to the Knesset.
“This,” it concludes, “is the only way to effect a break-down of the
present resistance to electoral reform on the part of the powers that be.”
In the UK, when really major
issues require forensic examination and recommendations for government action,
what is known as a Royal Commission is sometimes established. When selecting the Chair and commission members,
the greatest care is taken to ensure that only individuals of the highest
integrity and with the greatest expertise are appointed. The last such commission, in 2000, was concerned with reform of the House of Lords and culminated in a report containing
132 recommendations.
Israel’s electoral system in its
present state would seem to be a prime candidate for such a process – a
dispassionate examination by constitutional experts, able to conduct a root and
branch analysis, to compare it with other democratic systems, and to make
recommendations for change. It is
especially fortunate that a mechanism akin to the UK’s Royal Commission is available. In October 2000, at the beginning of the
Second Intifada, the Israeli government set up the Or Commission – officially a
"Commission of Inquiry into the Clashes Between Security Forces and
Israeli Citizens in October 2000".
If the new unity government does
nothing else during its time in power, it should surely take the first steps
towards providing Israel with an electoral system better suited to its needs –
an ideal initiative for new Justice Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, to take on board.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/something-israels-government-can-do-672294
No comments:
Post a Comment