On Monday, the Knesset voted no-confidence in the prime minister. Did the government fall? It didn’t even tremble. The vote was meaningless, and the debate was hardly reported. The new direct elections system, under which the prime minister can be deposed only if 61 out of the 120 members of Knesset vote no-confidence in him, in which case the Knesset itself is automatically dissolved, "has emasculated the no-confidence device," wrote Avraham Tirosh ("Ma'ariv" June 10).
On the same page, Arye Naor noted that "in Israel’s fifty years, a government has only once fallen in a no-confidence vote... which demonstrated, on the one hand, the stability of government in Israel, and, on the other, the supremacy of the Knesset."
Talking shop
Now, according to Naor, "the Knesset has become a mere nuisance, a talking shop, not the source of the government’s authority and the main institution controlling it."
Gideon Samet ("Ha'aretz" June 10) observed that many politicians complain that they are kept in the dark about important developments, and blamed this too on the direct election system. "The lack of information is not only typical of the kind of solo regime establishing itself here, it expresses the crumbling of the entire political map."
"Born in sin" is how Nahum Barnea ("Yediot Aharonot" May 25) characterised the election method first used in the 1996 elections, when Benjamin Netanyahu was victorious, saying it arose from "a derisive attitude to the rules of the democratic game, hatred of politics, and , mainly, hatred of the religious sector." (It was political maneuvering by the religious parties in 1990 that led to the call for constitutional reform).
Backfire
"The law achieved the opposite of what it was supposed to achieve," continued Barnea. "The power and weight of the religious parties has not only not diminished, it has grown to dimensions that endanger the cohesion of Israeli society... [Professor Uriel] Reichman (one of the architects of the new system) argues in his defence that the fact that the first time it was used a poor candidate was elected doesn’t mean the method is entirely discredited. He’s wrong. The main flaw isn’t Netanyahu, but the split vote option... which has led to the withering of the two major parties, the rise of sectoral, egotistical, parties, and to the candidates toeing the extremists’ line... Returning to the old method won’t make Israeli politics perfect... but it will provide a chance of halting the process of destruction undermining the our political institutions from within, and a chance of returning the focus of power to the centre."
Another deficiency of the system in Barnea’s eyes is the arrogance he says it has allowed the prime minister to assume.
Barnea and co. may get their wish. Last week, the Knesset passed at first reading a bill to end direct prime-ministerial elections, despite fierce objections from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Ehud Barak. But not everyone is applauding.
Go forward
Professor Reichman ("Yediot Aharonot" May 27 says simply: "Direct election is a excellent expression of the democratic process: the citizen chooses directly the person to lead the executive arm of government." Reichman concedes that the system needs adjustment, but says "we must go forward, not run back to the past."
The question of how to achieve unity and effective government in a fissiparous society concerns both sides. While Democracy Institute chairman Arik Carmon ("Yediot Aharonot" May 27) argues that "the great shortcoming of the current system is that it encourages conflict and confrontation", Reichman says the system "shifted bargaining power from the small parties to the elected prime minister.. and helps to achieve stability in a period of splits and polarisation."
Gad Jacoby ("Yediot Aharonot" May 26) says people have forgotten how rotten the old system was. To restore the standing of the Knesset, he proposes that some Knesset members should be directly elected in regional constituencies, as a modification to the present proportional representation system.
Self-interest
Yosef Lapid ("Ma'ariv" May 28) suspects the promoters of the bill to revert to the old system (Yossi Beilin of Labour and Uzi Landau of Likud) of merely serving the interest of the major parties of which they are members. "What’s bad for the big parties isn’t necessarily bad for the little voter," he observes.
Amnon Rubinstein ("Ha'aretz" June 2) also sees the positive aspect of allowing the Knesset to reflect the different sections of the population, and says the small parties may well have increased their representation just as much had the old system been retained. The great advantage of the new system, as he sees it, is that it guarantees that a minority, extremist candidate cannot become prime minister.
In a discussion about democracy, the last word ought to go to the electorate. A survey published in "Yediot Aharonot" (May 27) showed only 42% support for the direct election system. 53.5% of respondents said they thought it had failed.
Published by Israel's Business Arena on June 11, 1998
Responses to Press Cuttings are welcome. Please send comments to davidg@globes.co.il
Israel’s Main Hebrew Dailies:
| Readership as % of population |
| | Weekday | Weekend |
| Yediot Aharonot | 48.4% | 62.5% |
| Ma’ariv | 23.5% | 33.3% |
| Ha’aretz | 7.1% | 9.8% |
| Globes | 3.5% | 2.8% |
The above figures are based on a survey carried out by the Israel Advertising Association in November 1996. The survey covered a sample of 2,500 people representing a cross-section of the population of Israel.
Recent Editions:
- Islamic Fall Out (June 5)
The consequences for Israel of India and Pakistan's nuuclear tests.
- Must Blood Flow? (May 28, 1998)
Is violence between Israel and the Palestinians inevitable before a settlement is reached?
- Ultimate Ultimatum (May 21, 1998)
The US isn't backing Netanyahu’s proposals for Territories withdrawal, but the real squeeze is within the coalition. Plus: David Bar-Ilan's indiscretion.