Symptoms of a Poor Government Structure
This article is neither a new "road map" nor a separate proposal for peace in the Middle East. It is a criticism of the present system of government in Israel based on comparisons, historical facts, and, of course, my own perceptions.
These days, a Prime Minister of Israel is a modern "satrap" of a foreign power. He gets his marching orders from Washington, and not from the Israeli voters. At home, he does as he sees fit, and can bring a defeated opponent back into power at the expense of his own party and coalition, regardless of the political, economic and human costs to the nation. There is little or no accountability.
Ironically, the end of the Cold War has proven catastrophic to Israel's foreign policy.
Comparing the Governments of Canada, Israel and the United States of America
I live in Canada, a democracy. This country has a Prime Minister, a Parliament (House of Commons), and a patronage-based appointed Senate. The PM has enormous power. He appoints his ministers, and, with a majority in Parliament, he can do virtually as he pleases. The country is divided in ridings, where voters choose their representatives among multiparty contestants. The leader of the party with the largest number of seats becomes the PM. A governing party does not always obtain over 50% of the popular vote.
Some people call the system a "benign dictatorship". Even if my representative is a member of the governing party, he/she had better be careful opposing the PM's policies and decisions, risking not only being relegated to the back benches with no chance of joining the Cabinet, but, in some cases, even expulsion from the party. Others call the system a "friendly dictatorship". To a very large extent, it works.
Canada has a few interesting features: a nation with no enemies, the second largest country in the world, a relatively small and quite well-off population, natural resources, huge national parks and open spaces bordered by three oceans, and the biggest market in the world to the south. Probably the most important life and death issue the PM has to handle is keeping Universal Health Care viable. Suicide bombers haven't arrived yet.
We also have a Constitution and a Charter of Rights.
Israel has a democratic system. Israelis vote for a party, not a person. A party is allocated Knesset seats according to how many votes it receives. The Party assigns these seats. This makes it possible for a very large number of parties to enter the Knesset and it does not allow for true representation. There are no ridings. People don't vote for people. Who represents Southeast Haifa, Northwest Jerusalem or Jaffa? The Prime Minister of Israel rules supremely, since Ben-Gurion's time. Proportional representation is a hold out from the system in force for electing members to the old Zionist congresses. It worked better during Israel's formative years. It is unresponsive to the life and death issues confronting Israel today.
Canada and Israel have two problems in common: 1) Ministers are chosen by the PM from among members of Parliament, not the best talent pool a nation has to offer, necessarily; 2) When the ministers are about to become good at their jobs, the PM shuffles the Cabinet.
Israel has two additional problems: 1) Her politicians don't like to retire. They stay on as Knesset members for as long as possible, whether in government or in opposition, aiming at a return to power as PM or ministers. Their seniority makes it easier for them to rank high on their parties' electoral lists, thereby assuring themselves of seats while at the same time preventing, or at least delaying, the rise of younger leaders and fresh ideas; 2) There is too much back-stabbing even among members of the same party (or at least it is more obvious in Israel).
The US and many other nations have a President heading the Executive branch and a Congress (an elected House of Representatives and an elected Senate), the Legislative branch. It suffices to say that the President can, in theory at least, choose his Cabinet and name other important appointees in the Administration from among the best of the whole population (key appointments are screened and approved by Congress). These individuals are not elected, they report to the President, they can be called by Congress to testify, and they can be replaced without bringing down the government. In contrast, Congress is elected directly by the people, is accountable to them, and can neither be shunted aside nor fired by the President. Although no system is perfect, because people are not perfect, this type of government provides the "checks and balances" that is an essential part of democracy: it checks extreme power, and it balances different viewpoints.
I believe a system with both Executive and Legislative branches, with full checks and balances, would benefit Israel in such areas as economics, immigration and trade - indeed, in all areas where there are ministers with portfolios. However, I'll concentrate on the benefits to the overall security of the State (security in the broadest possible sense), given her unique situation. I see no reason why a small country can not be divided into ridings, because, after all, people are still supposed to represent people. Office holders should be accountable to their constituents, both during and after elections. I am also definitely in favor of term limits.
Why Foreign Leaders Like The Present Israeli System
The Arabs, and principally the Palestinian Arabs and their allies, have mastered the concept of "divide and conquer" by applying it in reverse. The Palestinians Arabs, by appearing to be hopelessly divided into factions and organizations, apply constant pressure on Israel, both in time and space. This way they can push for the release of all prisoners and for other dangerous concessions by alternating where the demands come from, the nature of these demands, their timing, and the consequences if they are not met. In this way, a situation has arisen in which the ones who are "divided" are actually doing the conquering!
This situation fits like a glove with the policies of Western countries: they can once again push for Israel to make concessions and goodwill gestures without her getting anything in return. It is only necessary to "conquer" one Israeli: the Prime Minister. Assigning blame for failure is easy, too.
I ask: have 55 years of relentless Arab hostility in the form of war, boycott, and propaganda been forgiven and forgotten? Has a trap of monumental proportions been planned and is it now entering a mid- to long-term implementation stage? Is the idea of Israel being led by well-intentioned PMs having so much power good for her? It's too easy to get concessions out of her. Can she do better?
[Part 1 of 3]
This article is neither a new "road map" nor a separate proposal for peace in the Middle East. It is a criticism of the present system of government in Israel based on comparisons, historical facts, and, of course, my own perceptions.
These days, a Prime Minister of Israel is a modern "satrap" of a foreign power. He gets his marching orders from Washington, and not from the Israeli voters. At home, he does as he sees fit, and can bring a defeated opponent back into power at the expense of his own party and coalition, regardless of the political, economic and human costs to the nation. There is little or no accountability.
Ironically, the end of the Cold War has proven catastrophic to Israel's foreign policy.
Comparing the Governments of Canada, Israel and the United States of America
I live in Canada, a democracy. This country has a Prime Minister, a Parliament (House of Commons), and a patronage-based appointed Senate. The PM has enormous power. He appoints his ministers, and, with a majority in Parliament, he can do virtually as he pleases. The country is divided in ridings, where voters choose their representatives among multiparty contestants. The leader of the party with the largest number of seats becomes the PM. A governing party does not always obtain over 50% of the popular vote.
Some people call the system a "benign dictatorship". Even if my representative is a member of the governing party, he/she had better be careful opposing the PM's policies and decisions, risking not only being relegated to the back benches with no chance of joining the Cabinet, but, in some cases, even expulsion from the party. Others call the system a "friendly dictatorship". To a very large extent, it works.
Canada has a few interesting features: a nation with no enemies, the second largest country in the world, a relatively small and quite well-off population, natural resources, huge national parks and open spaces bordered by three oceans, and the biggest market in the world to the south. Probably the most important life and death issue the PM has to handle is keeping Universal Health Care viable. Suicide bombers haven't arrived yet.
We also have a Constitution and a Charter of Rights.
Israel has a democratic system. Israelis vote for a party, not a person. A party is allocated Knesset seats according to how many votes it receives. The Party assigns these seats. This makes it possible for a very large number of parties to enter the Knesset and it does not allow for true representation. There are no ridings. People don't vote for people. Who represents Southeast Haifa, Northwest Jerusalem or Jaffa? The Prime Minister of Israel rules supremely, since Ben-Gurion's time. Proportional representation is a hold out from the system in force for electing members to the old Zionist congresses. It worked better during Israel's formative years. It is unresponsive to the life and death issues confronting Israel today.
Canada and Israel have two problems in common: 1) Ministers are chosen by the PM from among members of Parliament, not the best talent pool a nation has to offer, necessarily; 2) When the ministers are about to become good at their jobs, the PM shuffles the Cabinet.
Israel has two additional problems: 1) Her politicians don't like to retire. They stay on as Knesset members for as long as possible, whether in government or in opposition, aiming at a return to power as PM or ministers. Their seniority makes it easier for them to rank high on their parties' electoral lists, thereby assuring themselves of seats while at the same time preventing, or at least delaying, the rise of younger leaders and fresh ideas; 2) There is too much back-stabbing even among members of the same party (or at least it is more obvious in Israel).
The US and many other nations have a President heading the Executive branch and a Congress (an elected House of Representatives and an elected Senate), the Legislative branch. It suffices to say that the President can, in theory at least, choose his Cabinet and name other important appointees in the Administration from among the best of the whole population (key appointments are screened and approved by Congress). These individuals are not elected, they report to the President, they can be called by Congress to testify, and they can be replaced without bringing down the government. In contrast, Congress is elected directly by the people, is accountable to them, and can neither be shunted aside nor fired by the President. Although no system is perfect, because people are not perfect, this type of government provides the "checks and balances" that is an essential part of democracy: it checks extreme power, and it balances different viewpoints.
I believe a system with both Executive and Legislative branches, with full checks and balances, would benefit Israel in such areas as economics, immigration and trade - indeed, in all areas where there are ministers with portfolios. However, I'll concentrate on the benefits to the overall security of the State (security in the broadest possible sense), given her unique situation. I see no reason why a small country can not be divided into ridings, because, after all, people are still supposed to represent people. Office holders should be accountable to their constituents, both during and after elections. I am also definitely in favor of term limits.
Why Foreign Leaders Like The Present Israeli System
The Arabs, and principally the Palestinian Arabs and their allies, have mastered the concept of "divide and conquer" by applying it in reverse. The Palestinians Arabs, by appearing to be hopelessly divided into factions and organizations, apply constant pressure on Israel, both in time and space. This way they can push for the release of all prisoners and for other dangerous concessions by alternating where the demands come from, the nature of these demands, their timing, and the consequences if they are not met. In this way, a situation has arisen in which the ones who are "divided" are actually doing the conquering!
This situation fits like a glove with the policies of Western countries: they can once again push for Israel to make concessions and goodwill gestures without her getting anything in return. It is only necessary to "conquer" one Israeli: the Prime Minister. Assigning blame for failure is easy, too.
I ask: have 55 years of relentless Arab hostility in the form of war, boycott, and propaganda been forgiven and forgotten? Has a trap of monumental proportions been planned and is it now entering a mid- to long-term implementation stage? Is the idea of Israel being led by well-intentioned PMs having so much power good for her? It's too easy to get concessions out of her. Can she do better?
[Part 1 of 3]