Politicians in Israel are unpopular. They’re perceived as self-serving and often just plain corrupt. Police investigations and court proceedings against prime ministers, presidents, ministers and members of Knesset are weekly occurrences.
With them as role models, little new blood is infused into the political system, as talented young people look to other avenues to realize their genius, wary of the quagmire.
The public’s disdain is also expressed in a continued decline in voter turnout for Knesset elections. While this does not necessarily reflect apathy in a society where everyone has an opinion about everything, it does echo Israeli voter fatigue due to frequent general elections and people’s repugnance of anything political.
Under Israel’s proportional representation system, the Knesset’s 120 seats are divided proportionally among parties according to their electoral success. A party receiving 25 per cent of the vote gets 30 seats, and so on. There are no local constituencies and MKs are not directly accountable to voters. A party need only get two per cent of the vote to be represented in Parliament. This gives rise to an abundance of parties. Thirty-one ran in 2003. Twelve got enough votes to get into the Knesset.
Supporters assert this scheme results in the Knesset democratically mirroring the diversity of political views existing within society and that this is what true democracy is all about.
Critics claim an abundance of parties creates governmental havoc, particularly in Israel, where no party has ever gained a majority. After elections, the largest party’s leader is tasked with forming a coalition government. Given the number of parties, putting that puzzle together requires backroom peddling and promise making, with each faction extorting benefits not always for the general good. When this task is finally completed, the government formed is forever susceptible to demands of parties holding the balance of power. The outcome is stalemates and stagnation. Effective decision-making is often frustrated and governments fall far too often.
This is dangerous in a country whose leaders are ceaselessly charged with making complex decisions regarding war and peace, not to mention Israel’s economic challenges during the current global meltdown.
There are other reasons for the distaste many Israelis feel for politics and politicians. Before elections, each party announces its list of candidates and their rank within these lists. These lists are formed using various methods. Some parties have central committees or advisory boards who decide who’ll be on their list and in which order. Others have the rabbis decide.
The latest trend is primaries. Several of the larger parties have recently held such votes in preparation for the Feb. 10 elections, hoping large party electorates will produce lists not corrupted by inner party power struggles. However, as recent events have shown, these hopes have not materialized, as vote contractors, deal-making and suspected fraud have infested the primaries, producing candidate lists that are much the same as those of the outgoing Knesset, if not worse. Worthy legislators (there are a few) with no broad political base, have been relegated to unrealistic positions on their party lists, often replaced by party apparatchiks.
A major overhaul of our election system is necessary. We must look to greener pastures for examples suitable for Israel, where mixtures of both proportional representation and British-style parliamentarianism act together.
Such is the case in Germany, where half the legislature is elected proportionally and the other in ridings and constituencies throughout the country. Each citizen gets two votes, one for a national list and the other for a candidate in his riding.
An even more interesting version of this method exists in New Zealand where its legislature, like Israel’s, has only 120 seats.
Moreover, in both these countries, parties must obtain at least five per cent of the popular vote to gain entry into Parliament.
This model ensures at least half of MPs are directly elected on their merits, providing their constituents a personal representative to whom they can address worries and grievances. It makes for more responsible politicians.
At the same time, parties elected proportionally ensure Parliament will continue to represent the diverse views existing within society, while the five per cent threshold effectively narrows the number of parties, discouraging smaller ones from running at all.
This combined model of elections might serve Israel well. It would not do away with all the darker sides of party politicking, and that’s precisely why its implementation could just about succeed. Conversely, adding an element of political accountability might help re-engage a cynical, disappointed and disgruntled public and renew its faith in the politicians who govern us.