The February 1999 issue of Outpost republished Ruth Wisse's excellent contribution to the Winter 1999 issue of Azure, a publication of Israel's Shalem Center. Commenting on the decrepit condition of Israeli politics, Dr. Wisse remarks: "I would give a dozen Einsteins for one Churchill. I would give all the refined intelligences of Brit Shalom for a single Margaret Thatcher." She concludes: "At issue today, as fifty years ago, is not the Jewishness but the stateness of the Jewish state."
Although one might well argue that the Jewishness of the Jewish State remains Israel's ultimate issue, Dr. Wisse is to be commended for focusing attention on statecraft. Statecraft, however, requires more than exceptional personalities like Churchill or Thatcher. Political leaders also require institutions conducive to statecraft.
The Churchill and Thatcher cabinets consisted of a single party. Hence both prime ministers could pursue coherent and resolute national policies. Also, Churchill and Thatcher enjoyed a conservative and secure parliamentary majority. They were not constantly distracted or threatened by votes of no confidence.
Contrast Israel:
The Netanyahu cabinet consisted of seven political parties, each with its own priorities. Mr. Netanyahu may not be a statesman of Churchill's caliber, but even if he were, I dare say he would lack the institutional ingredients required for the kind of statecraft Dr. Wisse ardently desires. Add to his splintered cabinet the profusion of eleven parties in Israel's parliament, at least three of which do not even recognize the Jewishness of the state!
Now contemplate Israel's forthcoming May 17 national elections. No less than twenty-two new parties have registered for this election--swelling the number to 56 parties eligible to compete in this absurd extravaganza! True, several parties will merge, and several will remain quiescent. But close to 30 will enter the race for power, courtesy of proportional representation featuring a mere 1.5% electoral threshold. Do not expect statecraft in Israel with this divisive electoral system.
While rightly deploring Israel's lack of statecraft, Dr. Wisse and others mysteriously refrain from discussing the institutional requirements of statecraft. Knesset Speaker Dan Tichon recently said that his greatest disappointment regarding the fading Fourteenth Knesset was its failure to raise the electoral threshold to 5%. I have elsewhere shown that, after two elections, such a threshold would produce a Knesset consisting of only three--certainly no more than four--Jewish parties, which in turn would produce cabinets consisting of no more than two parties. Surely this would be more conducive to statecraft--say to the formulation of a more coherent national strategy.
Dr. Wisse expresses concern not only about statecraft but about the caliber of citizenship in Israel. While some commentators regard Israelis as passive, others regard them as petulant. Be this as it may, the political attitude and behavior of citizens depend, in part, on the character of their political institutions. Studies indicate that an increasing majority of Israelis feel powerless, that Israel's political system is "closed"--this, despite the ease with which new parties form and multiply. The truth is that parties in Israel tend to become self-perpetuating oligarchies thanks to fixed party lists competing in a single countrywide district election, a system unique to Israel. This electoral system produces a Knesset (as well as a cabinet) whose members are not accountable to the voters in multidistrict or constituency elections. Democracy in Israel is a veneer, but thick enough to mislead the people and hinder reform.
The people in Israel are not passive but powerless. They are also frustrated by their inability to obtain a redress of their grievances through ordinary political means. Almost 90% of the registered Jewish voters vote. After doing so, however, their profoundest concerns and
Studies indicate that an increasing majority of Israelis feel powerless, that Israel's political system is "closed"--this, despite the ease with which new parties form and multiply.
Of course, even the best designed political institutions do not guarantee exemplary statecraft. Great Britain had its Chamberlain. But Chamberlain was succeeded by Churchill who possessed not only the courage and wisdom but the institutional means required to unite his people in the struggle against Nazi Germany. Israel lacks such institutions. Its parliamentary electoral laws artificially multiply divisions within the country, which can only encourage and incite Israel's enemies.
One last word. Israel's political system has collapsed, only few realize the fact. The collapse will become obvious to all after the May 17 elections. Perhaps only then will it be possible to reform Israel's political institutions so as to render them conducive to statecraft.
Paul Eidelberg is professor emeritus of political science at Bar Illan University.
March 1999 - 7 - Outpost