Protest breaks out when all other channels are blocked that is the entire theory of protest in a nutshell. It follows that the mighty tent protest movement, which is at a critical crossroads, should head in one main direction: “Only change in the method of government and in the electoral system only that can engineer the great and necessary shift that the protesting nation must get underway.” So says Rabbi Yitzhak Levy, a former minister of education and minister and transport, and a person of the national religious camp. "It makes no difference whether you are of the right or the left. I myself am certainly of the right, and some of my colleagues calling for change are of the left. It is clear to all of us that, without a doubt, this is the path we must take. Therefore, my recommendation to the leaders of the tent protesters is: put change in the system of governance at the head of your priorities and demands."
Levy was a senior member of the Forum for Political Reform, headed by former President of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar, which presented its findings and a detailed plan of action in the Knesset six months ago.
"The citizen's conventional channel, for the non-sectoral middle class, is supposed to be the political parties, chiefly the large ones, that amalgamate interests, such as Kadima, Labor, and the Likud today. The problem is that this channel is blocked, choked off. It is blocked because, under the current electoral system, the citizen has no influence on the make-up of the parties," says Gidon Rahat, associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the Hebrew University., who heads a research group in the Shamgar forum, which was an initiative of the Israel Democracy Institute. "The party primaries have been taken over by block vote contractors and pressure groups, creating a situation in which the connection between the citizens, of the kind who have come out in protest, and the conventional political system, has become problematic, if it exists at all. As early as 1988, Gadi Wolfsfeld wrote in his book "The Politics of Provocation: Participation and Protest in Israel" that protest was characteristic of Israeli politics because the normal institutional channels elections and parties were blocked. Today, that is all the more the case."
Which way is the current protest movement, the biggest ever seen here, headed?
"It's impossible to protest for ever. The protest will fade naturally, because people have to work, make a living, and bring up their families, but the anger and frustration will remain. For the distress and the needs that have been expressed to be able to be absorbed in an orderly way by the political system, change is required in the political parties, such as regulation of the selection of candidates for the Knesset, to make that democratic, transparent, and clean. Change is needed in the electoral system so that, on election day, the country's citizens have real influence on the make-up of the Knesset."
Barely 64% of those with the right to vote exercised their right in the most recent elections.
"That's another sign of the blocking of the ability to influence. A change in the system could lead to a rise in participation. I myself also propose adoption of regional elections. The country would be divided into twelve regions, each of which would send a number of representatives to the Knesset in accordance with its size. That would shorten the distance between electors and elected. The voter, even if he or she does not belong to a particular sector, would be able to identify his or her representative."
Sector?
"A sector is an organized force, with directed leadership, and clear representation. The religious, for example, or the Arabs, or the ultra-orthodox. The existing electoral system is wonderful for sectors, but, if you are not in a sector, it does not facilitate identification with representatives. In such conditions, protest arises. The representation of sectors is not a bad thing, as long as it happens within large parties that balance different interests. Even a sectoral party is not negative, as long as it does not face weak non-sectoral parties, such as we have today."
The majority of the nation, the middle class in general, cannot be a sector. Does that mean that the protest will die out, leaving nothing behind?
"No, as long as the primary, central demand is change in the relationship between government and governed. Our political system, parliamentary democracy, is good, and has proved itself. We have to demand change in the electoral system, changes in the parties, and also in the Knesset. These are the main focus points. I'm in favor of the protesters' demands for rehabilitating and improving the welfare state; I only say that we have to ensure that after they pack up the tents, and that day will come, an institutional, party track remains open."
What should the tent protest leadership do to achieve that?
"They need to encourage the hundreds of thousands who marched in protest to sign up to the political parties and acquire influence there, so that in the parties there will be a critical mass of people with genuine views, and not just more political hacks. If all of this great energy is directed towards the parties, that will certainly represent the cause in the name of which the protest arose: rehabilitation of the welfare state."
"Empty slogan
In the late summer of 2009, the opening meeting of the Forum for Political Reform took place. Shamgar set the tone: "As a system of government, parliamentary democracy is not necessarily free of shortcomings, errors, and faults. It is our task to uncover these, with due care, exercising judgment, and to make amendments if we have something better to offer." Alongside the former president of the Supreme Court sat more than 100 members of the Forum, among them former ministers and members of Knesset from various parties, ex-judges, academics, and public figures. Working alongside them was a team of ten researchers, headed by Prof. Gideon Rahat, which carried out historical investigations, and international comparisons with dozens of democratic countries. The Forum had four sub-committees, each with a controlled mix of knowledge, status, and experience, with careful attention to ensuring a variety of opinions and political stances.
In addition, the non-profit organization Israelis for Saving Democracy acted, and continues to act, energetically. The organization describes itself as a group of "Israelis of different political views who have come together to repair flaws in Israel democratic structure, to strengthen it, and to improve it. The basis of our work is the assumption that parliamentary democracy is the only system that properly represents Israeli society with its range of beliefs, opinions, and aspirations."
At the end of March 2011, a ceremony took place in the Knesset: Shamgar presented Speaker of the Knesset Reuven Rivlin with the Forum's recommendations, in the presence of a large audience. Fixes and improvements, yes; great revolutions, no. Ten necessary first steps. As Rivlin said at the time, "There is no attempt here to change the system from the foundations, but an attempt to improve it. This initiative of the Israel Democracy Institute is vital for saving parliamentary democracy." Shamgar said at that same ceremony, "We seek to strengthen and advance our method of governance. Thus we shall improve the stability of government and the quality of its performance." Arye Carmon, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, added, "Israeli democracy suffers from more than one malaise. That being the case, there are no wonder drugs that will fix everything. I believe that the threat to Israeli democracy comes from within, and is incomparably greater than the external threat from Iran."
Rabbi Levy, a seasoned politician who has seen and heard everything, and who now serves as head of the implementation administration for the Forum's recommendations, wrote at the time, "The phrase 'amending the system of government' has become an empty slogan in the mouths of politicians, media folk, and academics, when they talk about curing the ills of government in Israel. Most parties take care to add an item to their election platforms that talks about improving governance, the same way that they put in an item about road safety."
Is there a direct connection between the existing system and the public's sense of frustration and bitterness?
Rabbi Levy: "Certainly there's a connection. For there to be substantial change, such as the tent protesters want, there has to be a very stable government not subject to all kinds of coalition pressures. A change in the system of governance, of the kind proposed by the Shamgar Forum, should lead to stable government by strengthening the status of the political parties, breaking the alienation between the people and their elected representatives, and dealing with the extreme lack of trust between the public and its representatives."
You mean the protesters should sign up for existing, or new, parties?
"Each person must decide that for themselves. It has to be clear that the decisions are always made, and always will be made, by politicians. The first and most important thing to do is to give them a basis for making good, brave, and new decisions. For that to happen, the existing method needs to be changed, and I hope that the Trajtenberg committee will pay attention to that as well."
Last week, Israelis for Saving Democracy delivered its plan for change to the Trajtenberg committee. The accompanying letter said, "The basic structures of the system of government in Israel, which the plan for change addresses, are directly connected to the failures that led to the outbreak of the protest. Therefore, to find real solutions, it is necessary to go into depth and substantially to improve governance in Israel."
"There's a great deal of justice in the current protest," says Rabbi Levy. "I agree with many of the demands. But when you talk about daycare, housing, welfare, education, and the periphery, all that has to find its place in the budget, in its small details. Someone has to work on the fine, practical details. We would say that it isn't right that only the Ministry of Finance should deal with this. We say that it is vital that a situation should be created in which the prime minister can make decisions, sometimes economically bold decisions, in the face of his coalition partners. Today, the prime minister heads a fairly small party, and has many partners. It's hard for him to make bold and unusual decisions for fear that he will upset the coalition's stability. I therefore think that it's not a matter of right or left. There may be left-wingers behind the protest, I don't know, and I discount that anyway."
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on September 1, 2011
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2011