Empty Promises

Israel continues to govern itself into oblivion. Watching the current ruling coalition attempt to fix the all too obvious problems within an unhealty Israeli political reality, one is simply astounded by the solutions thus far offered by the 19th Knesset for its remedy. The measures being taken are so paltry, so miniscule, that any sensible person would realize that these steps will prove vastly inadequate to reversing the growing instability within Israeli democracy. It looks like once again Israel has elected leaders that refuse its representative responsibilities and redeem its campaign promises to reform the Israeli political system.

During the 2008 election season, Israeli’s were once again promised a much-needed renovation to a decrepit political system that has become increasingly unstable and injudicious. This fruitless electioneering equation has been often repeated; promises were once again sweeping, and then, with power attained, the lack of performance becomes the rule and any sort of movement in reform must be fraudulently sold as a great and massive achievement. This chronic inability to turn popular election proposals into clear and actionable policy, is in itself, a manifestation of the gross inequities found within Israeli governance.

Let us review three proposals that were made by two of the most popular parties (Likud, Israel Betienu) now in the governing coalition and what thus far has become of them.

First reform, was the promise by Likud of a practical adoption of the Norwegian system where those parliamentarian’s that accept a role in the cabinet must cede its legislative role to the next in the party list as long as he/she remains in the executive branch. This is a simple, practical and tested method to insure independence of the legislature from the executive branch of government. Today, Netanyahu has the largest cabinet in Israel’s history, with 1/3 of the Knesset playing the dual role of both lawmaker and administrator. The sheer number of legislators who are part of the executive branch is staggering, and the clear lack of boundaries between the two branches only serves to weaken each equally, leaving a political vacuum, that has increasingly been filled by an activist judiciary.

Today, what is supposed to pass for the election promise of a Norwegian styled parliament is now reduced to a “mini” Norwegian law. A cynical political byline that pretends to make the type of difference it promised but falls far short of the reform needed. This mini law only requires one parliamentarian from a governing party, no matter the size, to relinquish one seat. That means that if adopted today, only five of the massive pool of 40 ministers/legislators would be required to relinquish its dual role. This proposed change is a far cry from the deep reform required to provide the much needed harmony between the three branches. This mini, mini, reform is a placebo, tountamount to attempting a cure for cancer by ingesting cough syrup. Today, even the placebo is undesired. Netanyahu has killed the mini Norgwegian law, in large part due tp coalition posturing and internal party politics.

Second, a promise was made to create an actual constituency for lawmakers. Replacing a broken party system, where today, it is the central committee members that decide the placement of candidates on a party list. Since Ariel Sharon’s upheaval of the party system when he denied the will of his own party, and instead, simply replaced Likud with an engineered party to do his bidding (Kadima), proportional representation in Israel no longer functions for responsible and accountable governance. The measures and designs to provide the Israeli electorate a direct representation has and still languishes in the Knesset's constitutional committee, and after the current Knesset's 2009 summer session, it looks like it will stay that way.

Far from attempting different initiatives to bolster voter accountability, the coalition has passed the Mofaz Law. This is a law that will actually make it easier for party disintegration and further erodes the strength of an already defunct party system. This cynical law reinforces the breakdown of party loyalty, the Israeli lawmakers solemn disregard to their party platforms and a general apathy among failed, but constantly recycled, lawmakers. This law ensures the continuation of the proportional system under the Netanyahu premiership.

The third reform promised at the height of election season was the referendum bill. This was the promise that if any land of Israel is to be ceded in any future diplomatic agreement there must be a direct mandate from the people in the form of a referendum. This policy was recommended in order to make sure the autocratic measures in passing the Gaza withdrawal would not repeat itself. The referendum bill is a supposed check on a glaringly unaccountable Knesset, insuring that an active electorate would force an honest debate and a general accountability in the Knesset when discussing any future ceding of Israeli land. Unfortunately, when words came to deeds all was for naught, because there is simply nothing to write, conversation on this topic within the coalition has simply evaporated.

The very fact that there is wide acceptance of these governing reforms in Israeli society today, and that a chorus of leaders have made campaign promises capitalizing on these popular opinions but is followed with no real action, buttresses the popular claim that today the government of Israel is unaccountable to its citizen to a critical degree. This situation has reached a tipping point in Israel, manifested in consistent polling that shows that Israeli’s have a serious lack of faith in its governing institutions, characterizing it both unstable and innaccessible. Not to mention a slew of corruption scandals that have reached the very top of the political echelons. Also, due to a multiplication of parties, today it requires a coalition of 5 different parties to make a governing majority in the Knesset.

It should be remarked aside from the failed reforms, that the nationalist camp has a great opportunity to show the Israeli electorate that they are the party of democracy by making it more accountable to the citizen. They have the great ability to prove that they are the camp of progress in their call to create a separation of powers and that they have the nations best interests at heart because they are willing to cede personal power, in order to generate a greater and more effective distribution of power. Though it is no surprise that this political strategy seems to be excluded by an entrenched political centered around a culture of personal politics on both sides of the aisle.

In conclusion, the Israeli citizen must be ultimately held to account for the above stated problems. Herein lies the secret to democratic success; it is only a proactive citizenry that is the best guarantor of its own liberty. The message of reform is simple: these problems will not go away by itself, but will only fester and strain an already contentious Jewish governance that is surrounded by Arab aggression. Israel's elite cannot afford to disenfranchise the Jewish States greatest asset…its people. Those leaders administering our state must be effectively engaged and made to understand that the people demand responsible civil servants that put personal power aside for the good of the nation and seek to redress the mistakes made in previous generations regarding the current political system, so that we may establish a more enduring and permanent government for our future generations to prosper therein.